Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[Josheb]

Preterist need the early date...or their theology falls apart.

Now, we do not. Even if Revelation was written in the early 90s the opening and closing of the book explicitly state the events described were going to happen quickly because the time was near. Whether it was near to 70 AD or near to 95 AD does not matter. Thomas Ice is wrong. Revelation 1:19 explicitly states John was told to write down things that he'd seen, things that were, and things that would follow. That means a large portion of Revelation had happened in or before John's lifetime or was happening at the time he wrote down what he saw. It does not matter whether the book was written in 70 AD or 95 AD; its contents covered events that had already happened (like the birth of Christ) and things that were happening in his day (like the tribulation. John stated he was a partaker in the tribulation. It does not matter whether that was circa 70 AD or circa 95 AD; the tribulation was happening in his lifetime at the time he was writing Revelation.

It's the futurist who ignores what is plainly stated.

Then again their theology falls apart when they can't show that the events described in Revelation have already happened.

That baseless accusation can be repeated ad nauseam but ad nauseam arguments are always and everywhere fallacious.

Straw men
Red herring
Ad hominem
Ad nauseam

These are fallacies the dissent has employed. It is not godly. Ice is wrong and his arguments should not be accepted or trusted. Ice is also off-topic. This op is about evidence dating Revelation that is internal, not extra-biblical.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Okay, back to another item of internal evidence in Revelation pointing to an AD 60 composition date...

Revelation written in the year AD 60

I have already addressed this point about the meaning of the 666 number in the post called "666 years calculated for the Sea Beast's existence", so I'll try not to go into as much detail here as I did there. However, this point needs to be added to the list here, since it is part of Revelation's internal witness for an early AD 60 composition date.

Dr. Gentry again went to great length in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell" using the gematria method to calculate the name of Nero to match the 666 number. This is unnecessary. The 666 number that John's readers were to "count" or "calculate" did involve a mathematical calculation of sorts, but it was not related to gematria at all. Instead, the 666 number was the number of years in which the Israelite nation had been under the control of pagan world empires, as of the time John was writing Revelation in AD 60. This was just before the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake that leveled that city (which point I have already covered above).

This 666 number, with a little understanding and wisdom thrown in, could be figured out by John's first-century readers so that they recognized who the Sea Beast was. The Sea Beast in Revelation 13:2 was described as having features of a lion, bear, and a leopard, which animals were drawn directly from Daniel's vision of the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Greek empires respectively. So the Sea Beast's biographical identity was a conglomerate mix of all those former world empires, beginning with the oldest Babylonian empire in Nebuchadnezzar's days.

Each one of those ancient world empires who had exercised control over the nation of Israel had demanded homage from the Israelites of some kind or another over the centuries. (Nebuchadnezzar's worship of the golden image of himself, Darius' decree demanding no prayers to any other god, Antiochus E. demanding the Israelites abandon their faith on pain of death, etc.)

King Nebuchadnezzar, (who was pictured in Daniel 7:4 as the "lion" kingdom), staged three deportations of the Jews from Jerusalem before its destruction in 586/587 BC. Daniel was a captive during the first of these deportations in 607 BC. Counting forward 666 years in time from that year, we arrive at AD 60 when John was writing Revelation. Except John's readers were to supposed to count backward in time those 666 years from the time John was writing Revelation to identify the man King Nebuchadnezzar who had been the first of those four pagan world empires to put them under subjection during those years of exile.

The 666 number is called "the number of a man" in Revelation 13:18, which man was King Nebuchadnezzar when that Sea Beast first came into existence in 607 BC. Daniel 7:4 reads concerning the first of his 4 beasts that, "The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it." This "number of a man" description can also be a reference to Daniel's statue of a man composed of all those different metals (gold, silver, brass, iron) which represented those multiple nations.

 

[Mr GLee]

I provided everyone here with evidence showing John was quoting Jeremiah and what the mention of "the kings of the world" indicates. Why is that evidence now being ignored and something extra-biblical and baseless asserted?

Hi thanks for the reply.

Extra biblical?

What does the first century reformation point to as the foundation of the promise restoration?

What was it restored to .. Why were there kings in Israel.? Was it not enough our father was reigning from heaven as King of kings. What motivated the faithless Jew to demand a king like every pagan nation.?

1 Samuael 8:7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

What happened as a result of the reformation? Did they elect a new King? There was no Jewish King siting in the holy of holies when the veil was rent. Satan fell he could no longer deceive all the nations God was a Jewish man.

 

[Mr GLee]

Partly correct. The temple built by human hands was desolate and it was an abomination. God does not dwell in houses built by human hands. The entire artifice was an abomination of desolation. Jesus did not mention "that oral tradition of dying mankind," and there's no ned to add to the text things nowhere stated like moves and high mountains and kingdoms of the world. The only kingdom mentioned in Matthew 23 is the kingdom of heaven (vs.13) and "kingdoms of the world" is nowhere found in Matthew 24, either. The only kingdom that could remotely be viewed as global is the kingdom of the gospel and Paul tells us the gospel had been proclaimed throughout all of creation by the time he'd written the Colossians.

In that parable He declared it desolate at the end of 23 . 24 continues. . . the disciples wanted him to take a second look in the twinkling of the eye on the mountain set aside to represent all the kingdoms of the world.

Matthew 24King James Version24 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

No sign to wonder after was given.

Remember his whole life was used as a living parable disappearing and reappearing has value.

 

[Wordsmith]

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:

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

"Shortly" is an undetermined time frame which is not the same in God's eyes as it is in our own.

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
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.

"The time is at hand" is another undetermined period of time.

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

This was written to 7 churches which were in John's time, when he wrote those words.

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

If some claim this happened in or around 70 AD it is on them to show the evidence. "Every eye shall see him" is quite specific and not a statement to be spiritualize for convienence.

It is my contention that this event did not happen in 70 AD !

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Three time frames mentioned in relation to John's time. Past , present and future.

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

John told to write to the 7 churches which "ARE" in John's time.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Again 3 time frames past, present and future to John's time.

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

Again 3 time frames "hast seen" past "which are" present "shall be here after" future to John's time.

"Shall be hereafter" is an undetermined period of time not confined to man's perception of "shortly" and "at hand".

20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

My point is nothing in this chapter's text gives a set exact time frame for all of the events in Revelation to be complete.

I have no disagreement that the destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied but it is quite a stretch to say the majority of Revelation is fulfilled and tied to that past event.

Revelation describes events past , present and future to John's time.

 

[CrowCross]

Now, we do not. Even if Revelation was written in the early 90s the opening and closing of the book explicitly state the events described were going to happen quickly because the time was near. Whether it was near to 70 AD or near to 95 AD does not matter. Thomas Ice is wrong. Revelation 1:19 explicitly states John was told to write down things that he'd seen, things that were, and things that would follow. That means a large portion of Revelation had happened in or before John's lifetime or was happening at the time he wrote down what he saw. It does not matter whether the book was written in 70 AD or 95 AD; its contents covered events that had already happened (like the birth of Christ) and things that were happening in his day (like the tribulation. John stated he was a partaker in the tribulation. It does not matter whether that was circa 70 AD or circa 95 AD; the tribulation was happening in his lifetime at the time he was writing Revelation.

Would you consider yourself as a partial Preterist rather than a full Preterist?

It's the futurist who ignores what is plainly stated.

That baseless accusation can be repeated ad nauseam but ad nauseam arguments are always and everywhere fallacious.

Straw men
Red herring
Ad hominem
Ad nauseam

These are fallacies the dissent has employed. It is not godly. Ice is wrong and his arguments should not be accepted or trusted. Ice is also off-topic. This op is about evidence dating Revelation that is internal, not extra-biblical.

As I have been saying....Rev hasn't happened yet. I've provided verses in previous verses.

 

[3 Resurrections]

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

"Shortly" is an undetermined time frame which is not the same in God's eyes as it is in our own.

This text in 2 Peter is not teaching that time is an immaterial thing to God. What it does teach is that God fulfills His prophetic word, whether that word is given only a single day in advance or whether it is given a thousand years in advance. He brings His prophecies to pass exactly in the time predicted, regardless of the timespan. A prophecy given "shortly" in advance will be fulfilled in a short timespan, just as promised.

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

If some claim this happened in or around 70 AD it is on them to show the evidence. "Every eye shall see him" is quite specific and not a statement to be spiritualize for convienence.

Of course that statement is quite specific. It is specifically related to "those who pierced Him" and the Israelite tribes who would be mourning because of seeing Him return. "...And every eye shall see him, EVEN or NAMELY those who pierced Him" limits this "every eye" to the generation of Israelites who put Christ to death seeing this return of Christ to the Mount of Olives.

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

Again 3 time frames "hast seen" past "which are" present "shall be here after" future to John's time.

"Shall be hereafter" is an undetermined period of time not confined to man's perception of "shortly" and "at hand".

That's not the most accurate translation. It reads "...those things which are about to be hereafter". This was events imminent to John's own future: soon to happen in that generation.

The words "at hand" which John employs are very specifically defined by God (not man's perception) in Ezekiel 12:21-28. Any prophecy which is "at hand" is fulfilled in the days of the ones who are first given that prophecy. They are not "delayed" into "times that are far off". God both speaks the prophecy, and then performs in "in your days" to the ones first given that prophecy.

This same "at hand" time limitation by God is what John used in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 - both the introduction and the conclusion of his book. Everything sandwiched in between that introduction and conclusion of a future "about to be hereafter" was soon to take place in John's own days. The reason for dating Revelation correctly from its own internal evidence is to pin down that "at hand" time period with precision.

 

[Josheb]

Hi thanks for the reply.

Extra biblical?

Yes, Extra-biblical. Post hoc appeals to secular history are extra-biblical. Appeals to apocryphal writings and those of the ECFs (or any other extra-canonical theologian) are extra-biblical. Thomas Ice is extra-biblical! He's just another guy who is not here in this thread to assert, defend, or correct his own words. Appealing to Ice is an appeal to authority, a fallacy. For every Ice you seek out I can find another man not here who says the exact opposite. Furthermore, Ice is working from a theology that was literally invented in the 19th century; a theology that has bred nearly 200 years of false prognosticators that no one in that theology ever holds accountable. In some of these cases the discussion might logically permit those sources, but this op stipulates internal evidence.

What does the first century reformation point to as the foundation of the promise restoration?

It was not Enoch, Josephus, or Thomas Ice, and the inquiry is off-topic.

There was no Jewish King siting in the holy of holies when the veil was rent.

There was. His name is Jesus, the name above all names, whose rule is far above all others.

Satan fell he could no longer deceive all the nations

Yep. It happened in the first century prior to 70 AD. That's why I asserted the use of Rev. 1:19 and suggested the binding of satan in chapter 20 qualifies as one of the early measures of Rev. 1:19, namely it being a thing John had seen and therefore no something anyone need look forward to in the future. If true, that would defy all the eschatological speculation and most views would have to substantively change - but that is not the subject of discussion. Op-relevantly, if Rev. 20 was an event that had occurred prior to John writing down the things he'd seen, the things that are, and the things that would come afterward, then that chapter cannot be made to argue a late date.

God was a Jewish man.

???

The Jewish man who is God said,

Matthew 10:5-7, 23
These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' ..............But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

If that is read literally then Jesus came before the twelve (or eleven ) had finished preaching the gospel in the cities of Israel. By the time Revelation was written the twelve had been persecuted, jailed, beaten, and some of the twelve had been martyred (as was predicted by the Jewish man who is God) and they'd left Jerusalem to take the gospel to cities outside of Israel. By the time Paul wrote to the saints in Colossae the gospel had been declared throughout creation (Col. 1:13). When asked when the sentencing of the Pharisees would occur, the temple destroyed, and the sign of Jesus' return, and the end of the age would occur Jesus looked them in the eye and said, "they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name." John had been hated for the name of Christ and sitting in exile because of that hatred he stated he was a partaker in the tribulation (Rev. 1:9). One of the churches to whom the seven letters was written was said to have already persevered, possessed their crown, and was assured they would be preserved (Rev. 2:9-10). The conjugation of the language is past and present tense, not future tense. Paul told the Corinthians the ends of the ages had already come (1 Cor. 10:11). The disciples, having left earlier the temple sat atop the saddle between the temple and the mount of olives and, looking down on the top of the temple asked the Jewish man who is God when the end of the age would come and by the time Paul wrote the Corinthians that end had come circa 57 AD.

Much of what I just posted is internal to Revelation, the rest internal to the new revelation. Not a single appeal to a single extra-biblical source. If two thirds of Revelation is about things John had seen and things that were existing at the time of his writing Revelation, then that leaves very little for the future and since John was writing to first century Christians about events they were supposed to know and understand, and they have all died, that leaves even less room for modern futurism. We would not even be having this discussion if it were not for the existence of modern futurism because they are the ones requiring a late date (even while they accuse others of their own biases). The above is just a sample of the evidence internal to Revelation and internal to Old and New Testament scripture. Not a single appeal to any extra-biblical source or doctrine.

Extra biblical?

Yeah. Extra-biblical.

 

[Mr GLee]

Yes, Extra-biblical. Post hoc appeals to secular history are extra-biblical. Appeals to apocryphal writings and those of the ECFs (or any other extra-canonical theologian) are extra-biblical. Thomas Ice is extra-biblical! He's just another guy who is not here in this thread to assert, defend, or correct his own words. Appealing to Ice is an appeal to authority, a fallacy. For every Ice you seek out I can find another man not here who says the exact opposite. Furthermore, Ice is working from a theology that was literally invented in the 19th century; a theology that has bred nearly 200 years of false prognosticators that no one in that theology ever holds accountable. In some of these cases the discussion might logically permit those sources, but this op stipulates internal evidence.

Woah there partner settle down. Its a open book test.

An appeal to secular history. ?. extra biblical ?no thank you. The bible uses the history recorde in parables two levels of understanding he hide the unseen signified understanding from those who do not apply the signified

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

Thomas Ice is one of those pretrip guys he refused to follow the signified instruction in Revelation 1:1 Without the signified instructions Christ spoke not .Calls it hidden manna in verse 17 chapter 2

The Jewish man who is God said,

Where was he when the veil was rent. Unlike the fictional wizard of OZ big voice little body.

Why does the lord inform us in the parable in chapter 20.He fell and could no longer deceive all the nation saying he will be loosed in the end to again to deceive mankind that God is a Jewish King of kings?

When asked when the sentencing of the Pharisees would occur, the temple destroyed, and the sign of Jesus' return, and the end of the age would occur Jesus looked them in the eye and said, "they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name." John had been hated for the name of Christ and sitting in exile because of that hatred he stated he was a partaker in the tribulation (Rev. 1:9

The temple was destroyed when he walked out of it declaring it deasolate .the abomination of desolation made to no effect ,

No Kings in Israel the pagan foundation .No sign where given to wonder after we have prophecy the perfect no need to follow after the signs and lying wonder king (satan) the kind of stuff God sends a strong delusion to those who literalize his living word

 

[Josheb]

In that parable He declared it desolate at the end of 23.

Jesus' confrontation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 is not a parable.

24 continues. . . the disciples wanted him to take a second look in the twinkling of the eye on the mountain set aside to represent all the kingdoms of the world.

That is incorrect.

What the disciples wanted is explicitly stated in the text and there is no warrant to add to or subtract from what is stated. They wanted to know, when they things Jesus said to the Pharisees and while leaving the temple would occur. They wanted to know what would be the sign of his coming (not his actual coming), and they wanted to know what would be the sign for the end of the age.

Matthew 24:3
As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

• when will these things happen?
• what will be the sign of Your coming?
• what will be the sign of the end of the age?

It is reasonable, given the syntax of their inquiry, to read their inquiry as a two-part question instead of a three-part question because the sign of Jesus' coming and the sign of the end of the age could be read as two parts of the same event or condition. That would render their inquiry as follows...

• when will these things happen?
• what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?

Either way, what they were NOT asking is anything about "the twinkling eye of the mountain set aside...."

The Matthew narrative covers six chapters. It begins in Matthew 21 at verse 18 and continues on all the way to Matthew 26:5. The entire narrative covers one single day in the life of Jesus and his disciples, the day after he entered Jerusalem. Within two days he'd be dead. Leading up to that day Jesus parables began to change from teaching about the kingdom to judgment. When he entered Jerusalem, he went to the temple and found it full of thieves, so he cleaned it out according to the Law of Moses (I believe I have already covered that content in this tread but if not, I'll provide that explanation if needed). had the temple remained clean it might still stand but Jesus returned the very next day to find it desolate and full of dead men's bones and white-washed tombs. The Sadducees and then the Pharisees had gone back and forth trying Jesus and by the end of the day they'd decided to kill him (Mt. 26:5).

That is, of course, the reason Jesus had come to Jerusalem (only they did not know it).

So in the evening of that day the disciples sat atop the Mount of Olives about 200 feet above the roof of the temple and, looking down on the temple Jesus had earlier said would be destroyed they asked a single question. Jesus answered that question.

Matthew 24King James Version24 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

The KJV is a poor translation of the Greek in this passage. The word used in the Greek is "aionos," not "kosmos." They asked about the end of the age, not the end of the world. Only the KJV and those translations holding to its tradition translate the aionos as "world." Scripture does not teach the end of the world. That has always been a wrong premise leading to very faulty eschatologies. At the end of Revelation the new city comes down out of heaven to earth; the world is not ended.

No sign to wonder after was given.

The text of Matthew 24 is an exposition of those signs. Jesus did not give one sign; he gave many.

No sign to wonder after was given.

Scripture states otherwise.

Matthew 24:30
Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

A sign was given. It was not specified or detailed, but Jesus did in fact explicitly state a sign would occur. Jesus explicitly stated the sign of the Son of Man would appear immediately after the tribulation and Jesus had earlier said the disciples would themselves be handed over to tribulation and John explicitly stated he was a partaker in the tribulation and the church in Smyrna was said to have persevered, obtained their crown, and their preservation was promised.

If the tribulation had occurred and the sign was going to appear immediately after the tribulation, then the sign also has occurred. That information can be found internally within Revelation itself and within other scripture. The same applies to the end of the age (I have already covered that information). The end of the age had come circa 57 AD, lending internal evidence to an early date for Revelation (not a late one).


Note: the sign of his coming and his actual coming may be two completely different events.

Remember his whole life was used as a living parable disappearing and reappearing has value.

Not germane to the subject of this op. This op is specifically about dating the book of Revelation using internal evidence.

 

[Josheb]

Would you consider yourself as a partial Preterist rather than a full Preterist?

Yep.

And the distinctions between the two are very significant, very important, and the two positions are not to be conflated.

As I have been saying....Rev hasn't happened yet. I've provided verses in previous verses.

Yes, that has been repeated ad nauseam but ad nauseam arguments are always and everywhere fallacious. All I read is a confession of fallacy.


This op is about internal evidence and ragging on preterists is not only off-topic it is another fallacy (ad hominem and red herring). It has absolutely no place in this thread. Anyone - no matter their eschatological orientation - should and can objectively look at the information stated in scripture alone and reach logically necessary conclusions.


John was told to write down the things he'd seen things which were, and things that would come afterward. That verse (Rev. 1:19) tells us some of the content in Revelation had already occurred. Some of Revelation was stuff John had already seen. Other content was stuff that was, stuff that existed in the first century. It does not matter whether the book was written in 70 AD or 95 AD; much of its content was content John had already seen and events that were occurring at the time of his writing. That is not a preterist view. It is not a dispensationalist view. It has absolutely nothing to do with eschatological bias and everything to do with reading, believing, and accepting what is explicitly stated in the book of Revelation itself.

John said he was a partaker in the tribulation. We either believe and accept what he wrote, or we do not. It has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine. If what he wrote is correct, then the tribulation was already happening when the book of Revelation was penned. It does not matter whether the book was written in 70 AD or 965 AD. The tribulation had already begun if John was a partaker. It has nothing to do with my being partial-preterist, someone being full-preterist, or someone being anti-preterist. It has everything to do with what John wrote being read exactly as written, literally, with the normal meaning of those words in ordinary usage. Since the tribulation is supposed to last seven years and John was living it, the tribulation has come and gone. Once the seven years is taken literally and John's claim to share in the tribulation is accepted the necessary conclusion is the tribulation has come and gone.

To the degree Revelation is about the tribulation then all that tribulation content in Revelation has also come and gone. It is a matter of logical necessity, not doctrinal biases.

Revelation contains letter written to congregations existing during the first century. There's not a single word in any of those letters indicating the events described are in their far, far distant future and at least one of the churches is told in present-tense language they have persevered and already earned their crown. If what John wrote to those churches was happening at that time then that part of Revelation has come and gone. Understanding those words exactly as written has nothing to do with eschatological orientation or doctrinal bias.

Revelation reports a woman giving birth to a son who is persecuted. If that son is Jesus (or Israel or the Church) then that event has already come and gone because Jesus was born before the book of Revelation was written. It has absolutely nothing to do with eschatological orientation or doctrinal bias and everything to do with what is stated in the text of scripture. Likewise, if the binding of satan in Revelation 20 occurred when satan fell then it too has already happened, and it had happened prior to Revelation being written. It has nothing to do with eschatological orientation or doctrinal bias and is a question only of whether or not the Revelation 20 binding is related to Isaiah and Jude. Noting more.


If we look elsewhere in scripture, such as Matthew 23-24 we find the disciples asking Jesus about the sign for the end of the age and we find Paul telling the Corinthians the ends of the ages had come (circa 57 AD). To the degree the book of Revelation pertain is to the end of the age then all that end-of-age content had come in the first century circa 57 AD. The ends of the ages had befallen the first century Christian by 57 AD and that, therefore, lends itself to an early dating of Revelation over a late dating. It has absolutely nothing to do with eschatological orientation or doctrinal bias and everything to do with reading, believing, and accepting what is plainly and explicitly stated internally in scripture alone.





No matter how this is considered the facts of scripture are this: scripture itself makes explicit statements indicating some of or much of Revelation had already occurred and/or was already happening at the time John was writing what he'd seen. It has nothing to do with eschatological orientation or doctrinal biases. Those who ignore what is explicitly stated are wrong - no matter their eschatology or biases.

 

[Josheb]

Woah there partner settle down. Its a open book test.

Stow that cr@p.

 

[Mr GLee]

Jesus' confrontation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 is not a parable.

The Son of man Jesus his whole life was used as a living parable using the temporal things seen. The dying flesh of the of Jesus to show the unseen eternal power of God .

It is so important to use the tools he has given us to rightly divide the parables

2 Corinthians 4:18 King James Version18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.


Remember the admonition of desolate was already declared desolate chapter 23 . The apostles in whom did not understanding the parable wanted him to go back for a second look .When they asked for a sign no sign was given to wonder after , Jesus said its a evil generation that seeks after a sign Believers have prophecy sealed no adding or subtracting

Not germane to the subject of this op. This op is specifically about dating the book of Revelation using internal evidence.

Using internal evidence?, the signified language of parables ?

 

[3 Resurrections]

2 Corinthians 4:18 King James Version18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Revelation's message was concerning how God in that first-century generation was about to shake and get rid of those things that were seen (such as the physical temple, "as of things that are made") to leave in place the unshaken, unseen things established (such as the New Covenant and the spiritual New Jerusalem).

 

[Josheb]

The temple was destroyed when he walked out of it declaring it deasolate .the abomination of desolation made to no effect.

Technically, the temple of God made of stone never existed because God does not dwell in houses made by human hands.

When God first spoke to David about a temple being built (2 Samuel 7) God told Daivd three people would build that temple: 1) God would build the temple, 2) a son of God's would build that temple, and 3) a descendant of David's would build that temple. After making those statements God spoke of the temple builder in singular language: "he," not "them." God told David the one who would build His temple would be a man of peace and it would not be David because David was a man with blood on his hands.

David tried to make the prophecy happen with his own hands, a work of his own flesh. Even though his next son was not in line for the throne (there were eight or nine sons ahead of Solomon in succession) David elevated the next boy ahead of all the rest. David also named the boy Solomon, which means peace, because God had told David the temple builder would be a man of peace. Not only was the man who waged war to consolidate Israel and the man who said life is vanity not a man of peace, but God had told David to name that boy Jedidiah. His name was an act of disobedience.

Daivd accumulated the materials used to build the temple over his lifetime and on his death bed he told his son Solomon about God's prophetic instruction but if the words of 2 Samuel 7 are read in comparison to what David told Solomon it will be seen David changed the words. David lied. David broke the cardinal rule pertaining to prophets: do not change God's words. Solomon then began to build the temple and in doing so the scriptures tell us no tools were applied to shape the stones but the stones were hewn so well they fit together without mortal. The problem here is that while the laws of God prohibited applying tools to stones used in God's altars, that same law also prohibited stones from being shaped or hewn at all! Every single stone in the entire temple was an act of disobedience.

The hewing of the stones and their fitting together without mortal ended up facilitating the temple's destruction. The temple was clad in gold. Real gold was hammered onto the stones and the entire artifice was covered in shiny gold. This was one of the reasons the Romans did not destroy the remade temple when they conquered Israel. Jerusalem sat on a series of (seven) hills or mountains, and the temple sat on the temple mount and rose above the city's walls so that as a person approached the city its majestic gold-clad temple shone in the brightness of the daytime sun. From certain viewpoints during certain times of the day a person could not look directly at the temple because the reflected sun was blinding. When the Romans conquered a city, they either destroyed the city's temples or took them over for their own gods. They did not do that in Jerusalem.

However, when the siege of Jerusalem broke through the city's gates and the city was burned the heat was so intense that the gold on the temple melted and poured into the crevasses between the stones where there was no mortar. In ancient times part of a soldiers pay was bounty or booty. The Roman soldiers were allowed to take what prizes they could carry. They pried apart the stones of the temple to retrieve its gold, thereby turning the temple into rubble. When the got to the foundation stones the left the city and confiscated plows and returned to plow up the foundation stones of the temple. Only what is nowadays called the "wailing wall" remains and all its gold is gone.

On top of all I just said, king Solomon's building of the temple of stone occurred within the context of 1 Samuel 8. God never wanted Israel to have an earthly king. He took their request for an earthly king, a king like all the other nations to be a rejection of Him! He told them the kings would be corrupt, but they persisted, and He let them have their way. Every single king, no matter who devoted to God he may or may not have been was a sign of disobedience, a sign of Israel's rejection of God as their King. Any one of the kings could have abdicated his monarchy and restored Israel to God as their king but none did so.

So the earthly King David lied to his disobediently named son who would become another earthly king symptomatic of rejecting God who disobeyed God by hewing the stones used to build an earthly temple when God does not live in houses made by human hands and direct disobedience to the fact God had told them HE would build His temple.

Centuries later we read the following....

John 2:18-22
The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

...and,

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.


The temples of stone were never God's temple. His resurrected Son and the body of believers indwelt with His Spirit are the only temple of God; the one He built.




And that is how most mentions of "God's temple" in scripture should be understood, especially those having to do with eschatological prophecy. It pays forward to dating Revelation because the temple of God had already been built or was being built long before Revelation was written. Long before either 70 AD or 95 AD.

 

[Mr GLee]

Revelation's message was concerning how God in that first-century generation was about to shake and get rid of those things that were seen (such as the physical temple, "as of things that are made") to leave in place the unshaken, unseen things established (such as the New Covenant and the spiritual New Jerusalem).

Yes ,I would call it ; the desolation of the abomination of desolation the government of God replaced by the government of dying faithless mankind . Blasphemy in the end of the matter Human form as if the power of God The time of reformation came the shadows became the vision ahead, In that way it would seem we have the light of the perfect(sola scriptura) sealed with 7 seals to guide the way to the last day.

 

[Mr GLee]

Technically, the temple of God made of stone never existed because God does not dwell in houses made by human hands.

When God first spoke to David about a temple being built (2 Samuel 7) God told Daivd three people would build that temple: 1) God would build the temple, 2) a son of God's would build that temple, and 3) a descendant of David's would build that temple. After making those statements God spoke of the temple builder in singular language: "he," not "them." God told David the one who would build His temple would be a man of peace and it would not be David because David was a man with blood on his hands.

David tried to make the prophecy happen with his own hands, a work of his own flesh. Even though his next son was not in line for the throne (there were eight or nine sons ahead of Solomon in succession) David elevated the next boy ahead of all the rest. David also named the boy Solomon, which means peace, because God had told David the temple builder would be a man of peace. Not only was the man who waged war to consolidate Israel and the man who said life is vanity not a man of peace, but God had told David to name that boy Jedidiah. His name was an act of disobedience.

Daivd accumulated the materials used to build the temple over his lifetime and on his death bed he told his son Solomon about God's prophetic instruction but if the words of 2 Samuel 7 are read in comparison to what David told Solomon it will be seen David changed the words. David lied. David broke the cardinal rule pertaining to prophets: do not change God's words. Solomon then began to build the temple and in doing so the scriptures tell us no tools were applied to shape the stones but the stones were hewn so well they fit together without mortal. The problem here is that while the laws of God prohibited applying tools to stones used in God's altars, that same law also prohibited stones from being shaped or hewn at all! Every single stone in the entire temple was an act of disobedience.

The hewing of the stones and their fitting together without mortal ended up facilitating the temple's destruction. The temple was clad in gold. Real gold was hammered onto the stones and the entire artifice was covered in shiny gold. This was one of the reasons the Romans did not destroy the remade temple when they conquered Israel. Jerusalem sat on a series of (seven) hills or mountains, and the temple sat on the temple mount and rose above the city's walls so that as a person approached the city its majestic gold-clad temple shone in the brightness of the daytime sun. From certain viewpoints during certain times of the day a person could not look directly at the temple because the reflected sun was blinding. When the Romans conquered a city, they either destroyed the city's temples or took them over for their own gods. They did not do that in Jerusalem.

However, when the siege of Jerusalem broke through the city's gates and the city was burned the heat was so intense that the gold on the temple melted and poured into the crevasses between the stones where there was no mortar. In ancient times part of a soldiers pay was bounty or booty. The Roman soldiers were allowed to take what prizes they could carry. They pried apart the stones of the temple to retrieve its gold, thereby turning the temple into rubble. When the got to the foundation stones the left the city and confiscated plows and returned to plow up the foundation stones of the temple. Only what is nowadays called the "wailing wall" remains and all its gold is gone.

On top of all I just said, king Solomon's building of the temple of stone occurred within the context of 1 Samuel 8. God never wanted Israel to have an earthly king. He took their request for an earthly king, a king like all the other nations to be a rejection of Him! He told them the kings would be corrupt, but they persisted, and He let them have their way. Every single king, no matter who devoted to God he may or may not have been was a sign of disobedience, a sign of Israel's rejection of God as their King. Any one of the kings could have abdicated his monarchy and restored Israel to God as their king but none did so.

So the earthly King David lied to his disobediently named son who would become another earthly king symptomatic of rejecting God who disobeyed God by hewing the stones used to build an earthly temple when God does not live in houses made by human hands and direct disobedience to the fact God had told them HE would build His temple.

Centuries later we read the following....

John 2:18-22
The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

...and,

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.


The temples of stone were never God's temple. His resurrected Son and the body of believers indwelt with His Spirit are the only temple of God; the one He built.




And that is how most mentions of "God's temple" in scripture should be understood, especially those having to do with eschatological prophecy. It pays forward to dating Revelation because the temple of God had already been built or was being built long before Revelation was written. Long before either 70 AD or 95 AD.

Thanks appreciate.

I think in one sense when God did move them through the wilderness as a ceremonial sign to the surrounding pagan nations they were used as a living temple leading toward the propmised land. . . drawing many gentiles to follow , But they viewed them not as shadows but as if there flesh was the power to destroy other nations ,After they reached the land God gave then over to create one of stone stationary then moved Jesus to declare the abomination of desolation desolate in Mathew 23.

 

[Mr GLee]

And the distinctions between the two are very significant, very important, and the two positions are not to be conflated.

Question . are both in need of what is called dispensationalism? if so can and will they both put aside thier differences and defend it ?

 

[Josheb]

Yes ,I would call it ; the desolation of the abomination of desolation the government of God replaced by the government of dying faithless mankind . Blasphemy in the end of the matter Human form as if the power of God The time of reformation came the shadows became the vision ahead, In that way it would seem we have the light of the perfect(sola scriptura) sealed with 7 seals to guide the way to the last day.

The "abomination of desolation" desolation. Desolation is an abomination. Desolation is an abomination of desolation. The abomination is the desolation.

 

[Josheb]

Thanks appreciate.

I think in one sense when God did move them through the wilderness as a ceremonial sign to the surrounding pagan nations they were used as a living temple leading toward the propmised land. . . drawing many gentiles to follow , But they viewed them not as shadows but as if there flesh was the power to destroy other nations ,After they reached the land God gave then over to create one of stone stationary then moved Jesus to declare the abomination of desolation desolate in Mathew 23.

Yep.

God is sovereign. God is sovereign even over sin. Despite his not wanting a human monarch for Israel, He used it. He did the same with the temple, even though the entire thing was rebellious. Had he not found the temple ridden with the six things He hates he might have left it standing and simply declared it a useful building that is not His temple.

That he found the temple ridden with corruption, deathly legalism, hypocrisy, false teaching, etc. and what would prove to be completely unrepentant idolatrous murderers is the temple's desolation. The temple, the city, the country was desolate. Desolation is an abomination. It goes all the way back to Genesis 1 (the earth was formless (desolate) and A&E were to subdue the (desolate) earth. Death is desolation and the Pharisees were dead men's bones, white-washed tombs. These are all things the Law declared unclean.

It was abominable.

And this is all one more bit of internal evidence showing much of Revelation had occurred prior to its being written or at the time during which it was written, and since it had occurred long before 70 AD it lends itself to an early date, not a late date.