Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[CrowCross]

God is not a man. (Creation)

The Son of man Jesu was here 33years. He died and his flesh has returned like any human .

That's not what the bible teaches.

One demonstration of him and the father was promised. God is not a man

The Word...who is God... became flesh.

 

[3 Resurrections]

12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

It is not I confusing what is spoken of in Zachariah!

Nothing in Zachariah 12, 13 or 14 refers to 70 AD!

The Israelite families and tribes spoken of here should tell you that this is the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem with the "siege both against Judah and Jerusalem" in Zechariah 12. None of these Israelite tribes or families exist today, and haven't since the genealogical records were all burned up when the Jerusalem archives went up in smoke by the end of AD 70. God intended this so that the focus would be on the New Jerusalem and the New Covenant conditions and not someone's Israelite tribal ancestry.

I was serious when I asked you a question about the "year-to-year" timespan of continued history for mankind in Zechariah 14:16, which was to follow Christ's second coming to the Mount of Olives in Zechariah 14:4-5. What explanation do you have for this? Any thoughts?

 

[Wordsmith]

Yes, Christ did come as He said He would in that first-century generation, and before some of those individuals He spoke to had died (Matthew 16:27-28). That was the second coming, and yes, scripture does present a third coming, only you have never considered it before, so you automatically dismiss the idea.

Do you have any historical evidence or record that supports your claim?

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

If you really believe the above passage actually happened in 70 AD someone should have noticed and we should have historical evidence that it actually happened.

Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Did the Lord actually loose this battle in 70 AD?
Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

If the Mount of Olives was split in 70 AD when Jesus touched down who put the Mountain back together or who filled in the valley created?

Let me ask you this. After Christ returns in Zechariah 14:4-5 to the Mount of Olives with His angels, why is there a "year to year" (Zech. 14:16) ongoing history of mankind still being described where the nations are plagued with "no rain" if they do not come up to (New) Jerusalem to worship the Lord? This means that the end of mankind's history does not finish with Christ's second coming in this prophecy. Ordinary history on this planet extends beyond that return of Christ for many years.

1000 to be exact!

So there must be a third coming of Christ for judgment when the end of that "year to year" timespan concludes. That is because all must have their turn at the judgment seat of Christ ("For we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ..."). A third return of Christ with a third bodily resurrection event is necessary for those who will have lived and died during that "year-to-year" timespan following Christ's second coming back in AD 70 .

Revelation 20 should explain this for you.

Christ did not make a sneak appearance in 70 AD nobody wrote about, fail to defend Jerusalem and forget to split the Mount of olives in half.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Do you have any historical evidence or record that supports your claim?

Yes, but not on this particular post, which is about internal evidence of dating Revelation.

If you really believe the above passage actually happened in 70 AD someone should have noticed and we should have historical evidence that it actually happened.

We do, but again, it doesn't belong on this post.

Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Did the Lord actually loose this battle in 70 AD?

The Lord never loses a battle. He left dead carcasses of those nations for the birds from the AD 66-70 Great Tribulation period.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

If the Mount of Olives was split in 70 AD when Jesus touched down who put the Mountain back together or who filled in the valley created?

Bad translation. The Kidron Valley would be "blocked up as far as Azal" by the earthquake rubble dislodged from the Mount of Olives in AD 70. No valley was created, and nobody fled. Check the LXX translation for this Zechariah 14:4-5 passage.

1000 to be exact!

I'm afraid that's not the case. The literal thousand-year Revelation 20 millennium ended with the remnant of the dead coming to life again with Christ in the "First resurrection" in AD 33. A long-past, fulfilled millennium. Subject for yet another different post than this one.

 

[Wordsmith]

Bad translation. The Kidron Valley would be "blocked up as far as Azal" by the earthquake rubble dislodged from the Mount of Olives in AD 70. No valley was created, and nobody fled. Check the LXX translation for this Zechariah 14:4-5 passage.

LXX
4 And his feet shall stand in that day on the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave asunder, half of it toward the east and the west, a very great division; and half the mountain shall lean to the north, and half of it to the south.
5 And the valley of my mountains shall be closed up, and the valley of the mountains shall be joined on to Jasod, and shall be blocked up as it was blocked up in the days of the earthquake, in the days of Ozias king of Juda; and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with him.

Verse 4 clearly states "the mount of Olives shall cleave asunder, half of it toward the east and the west, a very great division; and half the mountain shall lean to the north, and half of it to the south."

You claim no valley was created and the translation you site disagrees. You also conveniently state your version of of historical facts (with no proof) on the thread you claim is not for that purpose but refuse to state historical facts I have ask for.
When Jesus sets foot on the Mount of Olives it will split. Jesus did not set foot on it in 70 AD it did not split in 70 AD nor was the Great tribulation period AD 66-70!

I'm afraid that's not the case. The literal thousand-year Revelation 20 millennium ended with the remnant of the dead coming to life again with Christ in the "First resurrection" in AD 33. A long-past, fulfilled millennium. Subject for yet another different post than this one.

Not supportable by scripture!

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Many is not all!


Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This did not happen anywhere between 33 and 70 AD. There are no resurrected saints reigning on the earth with Christ now nor have there been any in the past. This is yet to come.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

There is no "long past millennium" it is still future.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You make unsupportable claims and cannot support them with any credible evidence scriptural or historical and hide behind:

1. "Subject for yet another different post than this one."
2. "Yes, but not on this particular post, which is about internal evidence of dating Revelation."
3. "We do, but again, it doesn't belong on this post."
4. "Bad translation."

If preterism is to have any credibility confusing the issue with the argument not on this post will not help your claim.

It my contention the preterits view in many cases is only supported by contorting facts both scriptural and historical to fit a narrative they do not fit.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You make unsupportable claims and cannot support them with any credible evidence scriptural or historical and hide behind:

1. "Subject for yet another different post than this one."
2. "Yes, but not on this particular post, which is about internal evidence of dating Revelation."
3. "We do, but again, it doesn't belong on this post."
4. "Bad translation."

I'm not "hiding". I am trying to abide by the website's rules, which are to stick to the OP as much as possible. I've no problem addressing either the subject of the Revelation 20 millennium, or the Zechariah 12-14 prophecy, but we are expected to do that on different posts other than this one.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Okay, continuing with another piece of internal evidence for Revelation's early date composition...

Revelation written at the latest before AD 65/67

This piece of internal evidence involves the doctrine of Balaam cult that is mentioned in Revelation 2:12-25. On a previous comment # 8 by @Marty, a link was given which included a mention of this doctrine of Balaam cult, helping to prove the early date for Revelation. I'm also going to refer to this same doctrine of Balaam cult here, although taking that evidence in a slightly different direction.

In the Revelation 2:12-25 context, the church at Pergamos and Thyatira were specifically mentioned as being plagued with this doctrine of Balaam. The "doctrine of Balaam" led by the self-styled prophetess nicknamed "Jezebel" is a fascinating study in and of itself. But for the purposes of dating Revelation, I'll only emphasize the scripture connections which address the time relevance of this cult.

When we compare this Revelation 2 passage with similar NT scriptures which describe this same heretical "doctrine of Balaam" and those who practiced it, (as found in Jude, 2 Peter 2:1-22, and even 2 Timothy 3:1-13), the conclusion to be drawn is that they were all composed around the same time period when the prevalence of this doctrine of Balaam was in the process of corrupting many in the early church. When we look carefully at the language, it tells us when Revelation was composed in relation to the other books.

First of all, look in Revelation 2 at the punishment God promised to send to "Jezebel" and "her children" who were immersed in this doctrine of Balaam that taught fornication and eating things offered to idols. God said in Revelation 2:21 that He had given "Jezebel" a "space" (kronos - of time) "to repent of her fornication", which she had not done. Then God pronounced His future intention to cast both "Jezebel" and "her children" (the erring members of her church assembly) into "great tribulation" if they did not repent. He would then kill her children with death.

This coming "great tribulation" for these errant followers of the doctrine of Balaam would be much more intense than the different episode of tribulation which John said he was already sharing with the saints in his introductory words of Revelation 1:9 ("I John...am your brother and companion in tribulation..."). That coming "great tribulation" would sift out those nominal Christians from among the assemblies who were "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" (2 Timothy 3:4). 1 Peter 4:17 (written around AD 65) announced that "the time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God..." That present time of "judgment" in the church was part of the coming punishment God had predicted in Revelation 2 for the erring servants in the church who had been following the doctrine of Balaam in those days.

Also, consider 2 Peter 2:12-15 (YLT): a passage which had to have been written after Revelation was composed, because it specifies a time when that earlier promise in Revelation 2 of "great tribulation" was about to fall in 2 Peter 2 on these who were following the way of Balaam. "And these" (the followers of the way of Balaam) "as irrational natural beasts, made to be caught and destroyed - in what things they are ignorant of, speaking evil - in their destruction shall be destroyed, about to receive a reward of unrighteousness, pleasures counting the luxury in the day, spots and blemishes, luxuriating in their deceits, feasting with you..."

Because we know that this book of 2 Peter was written shortly before Peter's martyrdom in AD 67 (according to the timing Peter gave in 2 Peter 1:14), then that means Revelation had to have been written at the very latest before AD 67, since the earlier promise of future punishment in Revelation 2 was about to come upon the followers of the way of Balaam in 2 Peter 2:13.

 

[TMSO]

The poster @Wordsmith courteously requested recently that I submit internal evidence from Revelation itself which proves the date of its composition. Many scholars have spent copious amounts of time and full-length books on this very subject of Revelation's composition date, which I believe was written sometime around early AD 60, as I am going to attempt to prove in a comparatively brief series of comments.

As I have written before, my first introduction to the view of Preterism 12 years ago was in a careful study of Dr. Gentry's dissertation, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which covers the external evidence that is used for a late date, and proves where it is defective or lacking. On the other hand, some of Dr. Gentry's proofs for an early date are flawed, and he is also missing several proofs of internal evidence for an early date as well. He proposes a mid-to-late 60's date, which is a few years too late by Revelation's own internal witness.

For the Preterist views to hold water, this evidence of the dating of Revelation is an absolute must, since so many of the prophecies hang on the time-relevant language which John used extensively throughout the book. This language itself is the determining factor for anyone trying to interpret Revelation's visions. When John announced that all his visions of the future were "at hand" in his Revelation 1:3 introduction and his Revelation 22:10 conclusion to the book, if we don't know what year the book was written, then we can't understand which generation these "at hand" visions applied to.

There are enough pieces of internal evidence in Revelation itself to cross-reference and triangulate with each other, which all unite to present a very precise time frame for the composition of the book around early AD 60.


Revelation written just after early AD 60

This just isn't possible. Laodicea was a pile of rock in 60AD due to an earthquake that almost destroyed the whole city. They took 30 years to rebuild the city, so it was once again a place of splendor by 90AD, the actual classically understood (until at least the 4th-5th century) date for the writing of Revelation. Iraeneus and Eusebius both pointed to 90AD as the approximate date for the writing of Revelation. They both point to Diocletian, not Nero as the Caesar that exiled John to Patmos. And, to top that off, Diocletians favorite form of punishment was... exile.

We can begin with John's own statement in Revelation 1:9 of his then-current situation of a tribulation period which he was experiencing at the time. "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."

In tribulation. If what you are going to try to say it is true, why didn't John say, in THE tribulation? Why speak generally, using terminology which just denotes persecution and hard times?

Christ had predicted for His disciples that they would endure tribulation and be persecuted from city to city in their evangelistic efforts during those early years of the church. So, which particular period of "tribulation" was John then experiencing? It has to be the one which coincides with all the other early-date internal evidence in Revelation - the one which occurred in the aftermath of the Ephesian riot of the silversmiths in AD 57; Ephesus being the capital of all Asia at the time, with the island of Patmos some 60 miles southwest of Ephesus, and under its jurisdiction.

Jesus was speaking of the future, and was actually speaking of the Jews, not the church. If you go back and study eschatology according to the Jews prior to Jesus coming, you will see that outside of a belief that the Messiah comes and suffers, leaves and then comes again to bring about the end, they sound premillennial. VERY premillennial. Jesus was telling the disciples that they had been taught an incorrect timeline. So the disciples, with their knowledge of eschatology from the religious leaders, asked, so what will be the signs of the end of time. Jesus tells them. He is not talking about 70AD, because that part of Matthew 24 is sepearate from the Olivet discourse. It happened at another time, and at another place.

Paul spoke about this period of persecution in Asia in 2 Corinthians 1:8 (written around AD 57). "For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life:" Paul said that in this case God had "delivered us from so great a death..." on this occasion, was even then continuing to deliver them, and would yet deliver them.

The riot in Ephesus instigated by Demetrius and the silversmiths against Paul's teachings was described in rather understated terms in Acts 19:23. "And the same time there arose no small stir about that way..." We've all read about the screaming 2-hour pep rally for the goddess Diana in the Ephesus theater which seated some 24,000, with Paul's two traveling companions dragged into the theater in front of the screaming throng. Paul desperately attempted to join his companions, but was prevented by other disciples - quite possibly Aquila and Priscilla, whom Paul later praised for "laying down their necks" on behalf of his life (Romans 16:3-4). The murder of the faithful Antipas on the Pergamos altar in Revelation 2:13 probably took place during this same time in Asia, as a fallout effect of this Ephesian riot.

Once the riot was finally calmed down by the town clerk, the Jews present in that capital city of Asia still remained actively opposed to the widespread success which Paul's teaching had caused in all of Asia (Acts 19:10, 26). Taking advantage of the Greeks' hatred for Paul's teaching, the similar hatred that the Ephesian Jews hostile to the faith bore for Paul continued to stir persecution afterward for the saints in Asia; so much so, that during Paul's AD 60 visit to Jerusalem, those Ephesian Jews seeing him there in the temple stirred up the people against Paul and attempted to kill him then and there on the temple stairs (Acts 21:27-31).

Paul had been continually warning the Ephesian elders for three years that after he left them in AD 60, "grievous wolves" entering the church would begin to draw the disciples away from the faith by perverse teachings (Acts 20:29-31). The faithfulness of the Ephesian church would begin to drift from the time of Paul's departure in AD 60 onward. This same defection was recorded by John as an accusation against the Ephesian church of having "left your first love" in Revelation 2:4.

In general, the Ephesian church had a commended record of their past labor, patience, a refusal to tolerate evil, having borne times of testing with patience, and not fainting under it (Revelation 2:2-3). This applied to their faithfulness in the period of persecution for the Ephesian church between the Ephesus riot in AD 57 and when Paul finally left them in AD 60. That was the point when their faith quickly began to drift. John noticed this and rebuked them for leaving their "first love" in Revelation 2:4. This means that John was writing Revelation in AD 60 when that defection was first starting to evidence itself in Ephesus. This defection would grow progressively worse in Asia towards the end of Paul's life before his AD 67 martyrdom.

John himself said he was a fellow "companion" experiencing this "tribulation" period in Asia, which was the fallout effect of the Ephesian riot in AD 57. The persecution and "perverse" teaching which the Ephesus church would experience would shortly result in Paul's discouraging estimate of the state of all the Asian churches in 2 Timothy 1:15 (written around AD 67 just before Paul's martyrdom). "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me..." Only Onesiphoris was then being commended for his ministry to Paul in Ephesus (2 Timothy 1:16-18). The majority of the churches in Asia by then had distanced themselves from Paul under the withering persecution by the hostile Jews and also the Greeks who worshipped Diana.

To be continued...

You assume much. John wasn't saying he was a fellow companion experiencing THIS tribulation period. He was saying that he was a fellow companion in persecution. The tribulation that John wrote about is in the future. It will be a time that will be so violent that the Bible says that if God had not shortened the time there would be no flesh left on Earth.

 

[3 Resurrections]

This just isn't possible. Laodicea was a pile of rock in 60AD due to an earthquake that almost destroyed the whole city. They took 30 years to rebuild the city, so it was once again a place of splendor by 90AD, the actual classically understood (until at least the 4th-5th century) date for the writing of Revelation. Iraeneus and Eusebius both pointed to 90AD as the approximate date for the writing of Revelation. They both point to Diocletian, not Nero as the Caesar that exiled John to Patmos. And, to top that off, Diocletians favorite form of punishment was... exile.

But you are making my point for me. Laodicea was indeed a "pile of rock" in AD 60, and it took a while to rebuild, even with all the material wealth which the city had at its disposal for renovations. This is why I am saying that Revelation with its letter to the Laodicean church was written early enough in AD 60 just BEFORE that AD 60 cataclysm took place. God had pronounced that "I am about to spue thee out of my mouth" in an imminent judgment of the city and the Laodicean church as well.

By using Irenaeus's own writing, I can easily refute the mistaken impression of a late date concerning Irenaeus' one translated quote which has caused so much confusion regarding Revelation's composition. But that would need to be included in a post about the external evidence for an early date of Revelation. This post is dedicated to the internal evidence of scripture that shows an early AD 60 date of composition when all the language is considered together.

In tribulation. If what you are going to try to say it is true, why didn't John say, in THE tribulation? Why speak generally, using terminology which just denotes persecution and hard times?

Because John was not in the "Great Tribulation" period at the time he was writing. That would come later in AD 66-70. John was experiencing one of the many episodes of trial that the church passed through in the first century after Christ had ascended. Christ had warned His disciples that they would be "hated of all men for my name's sake", and this hatred came from both Jew and Gentile sources, parents, brethren, kinsfolk and friends in those days.

Jesus was telling the disciples that they had been taught an incorrect timeline. So the disciples, with their knowledge of eschatology from the religious leaders, asked, so what will be the signs of the end of time. Jesus tells them. He is not talking about 70AD, because that part of Matthew 24 is sepearate from the Olivet discourse. It happened at another time, and at another place.

Jesus was quite clear in Luke 21:36 that His presentation of all the things which were "about to come to pass" would include the beginning of sorrows, imprisonment and beating in the synagogues, trials before the Sanhedrin, and that list of disasters accompanying the "days of vengeance", which included the return of Christ Himself immediately after those days. Revelation just fleshes out in more prophetic detail much of those disasters Christ had predicted earlier.

You assume much. John wasn't saying he was a fellow companion experiencing THIS tribulation period. He was saying that he was a fellow companion in persecution. The tribulation that John wrote about is in the future. It will be a time that will be so violent that the Bible says that if God had not shortened the time there would be no flesh left on Earth.

As I wrote above: John was then experiencing in Revelation 1:9 some of the 'beginning of sorrows" period which scripture says was a time of nation rising against nation, wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes in divers places, pestilences, etc. This "beginning of sorrows" taking place in the whole world was to precede the "days of vengeance" / aka The Great Tribulation from late AD 66-70 which mainly targeted Jerusalem and Judea. God shortened those years for the elect's sake who were waiting out the Jewish / Roman war in far off regions such as Pella in the Decapolis.

That unprecedented time of Great Tribulation never to be duplicated again is ancient history by now, and is not destined for our future at all.

 

[TMSO]

But you are making my point for me. Laodicea was indeed a "pile of rock" in AD 60, and it took a while to rebuild, even with all the material wealth which the city had at its disposal for renovations. This is why I am saying that Revelation with its letter to the Laodicean church was written early enough in AD 60 just BEFORE that AD 60 cataclysm took place. God had pronounced that "I am about to spue thee out of my mouth" in an imminent judgment of the city and the Laodicean church as well.

Except that John was not on Patmos at that time. He was on Patmos due to Diocletian, who came after Nero. Eusebius is clear on who the tyrant is that put John on the Isle of Patmos, and who was freed from his exile after Diocletian died. (He died in the early 90s AD.) Also consider that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, but he wasn't even in diapers yet in 60 AD. He was also a disciple of John, which would not be possible if John was already on Patmos.

By using Irenaeus's own writing, I can easily refute the mistaken impression of a late date concerning Irenaeus' one translated quote which has caused so much confusion regarding Revelation's composition. But that would need to be included in a post about the external evidence for an early date of Revelation. This post is dedicated to the internal evidence of scripture that shows an early AD 60 date of composition when all the language is considered together.

You do understand that everyone accepted the 90-95AD timeframe all the way up to the fourth century right? And Iraeneus and Eusebius are only part of the reason. Polycarp was around when Revelation was published, but, again, he wasn't even in diapers yet in 60 AD. (As in, he wasn't even born yet.)

Because John was not in the "Great Tribulation" period at the time he was writing. That would come later in AD 66-70. John was experiencing one of the many episodes of trial that the church passed through in the first century after Christ had ascended. Christ had warned His disciples that they would be "hated of all men for my name's sake", and this hatred came from both Jew and Gentile sources, parents, brethren, kinsfolk and friends in those days.

If you look at the Olivet discourse, Jesus says as soon as those things come to pass, He will return and the world will end. "29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from [r]the sky, and the powers of [s]the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His [t]elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."

Jesus was quite clear in Luke 21:36 that His presentation of all the things which were "about to come to pass" would include the beginning of sorrows, imprisonment and beating in the synagogues, trials before the Sanhedrin, and that list of disasters accompanying the "days of vengeance", which included the return of Christ Himself immediately after those days. Revelation just fleshes out in more prophetic detail much of those disasters Christ had predicted earlier.

In connection with what happens in Luke 21 "25 “There will be [p]signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the [q]world; for the powers of [r]the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

As I wrote above: John was then experiencing in Revelation 1:9 some of the 'beginning of sorrows" period which scripture says was a time of nation rising against nation, wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes in divers places, pestilences, etc. This "beginning of sorrows" taking place in the whole world was to precede the "days of vengeance" / aka The Great Tribulation from late AD 66-70 which mainly targeted Jerusalem and Judea. God shortened those years for the elect's sake who were waiting out the Jewish / Roman war in far off regions such as Pella in the Decapolis.

You understand that when Jesus speaks of birth pangs, that those are what happens within hours of child birth right? No waiting time. The baby is coming, and it is coming now. Except it isn't on the way yet, however, if you look at what is happening in the world today, we are one step from the beginning of the end. The only thing that is keeping the battle of Ezekiel from being realized is Russia's action. Depending on what Russia does, this can be a perfect fulfillment of the war in Ezekiel.

That unprecedented time of Great Tribulation never to be duplicated again is ancient history by now, and is not destined for our future at all.

Jesus did not say that it will never be duplicated. What he said is that before and after there will never be anything worse than this tribulation period. It will be the worst time period in the existence of Earth, to the point that scripture says that if the time weren't shortened, there would be no flesh left on Earth. So, this period of time will be worse than Noah's flood, and worse than all the horrible things that have happened in history. Worse than the holocaust. Worse than Stalin killing over 60 million Russians. Worse than the two bombs dropped on Japan. Worse than the horrors of WW I and WW II. Jesus was very clear.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Also consider that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, but he wasn't even in diapers yet in 60 AD. He was also a disciple of John, which would not be possible if John was already on Patmos.

You are confusing John the Revelator with John Mark, nephew of Barnabas. You are in company with Irenaeus in your confusion. He too got this mixed up. Lots of "Johns" were running around back then.

If you look at the Olivet discourse, Jesus says as soon as those things come to pass, He will return and the world will end. "

It didn't say that would be the end of the "world". Only the end of that "age". It's not a good idea to put words in Christ's mouth that He didn't say.

You do understand that everyone accepted the 90-95AD timeframe all the way up to the fourth century right?

No, I don't, because that isn't a fact. Irenaeus's comments were mistakenly translated concerning what exactly was seen in the end of Domitian's days (whether the man John or the Apocalypse were seen isn't made clear). Then the mistaken translated material was duplicated by others. You also are apparently believing the mistaken translated material.

In the very same work titled "Against Heresies" (Book V, Chapter 30) where that mistranslated material is found, Irenaeus also wrote about the 666 number, saying, "...this number being found in all the most approved and ANCIENT COPIES [of the Apocalypse]..." How could the Apocalypse be written "almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign" if even the COPIES of that Apocalypse Irenaeus himself was calling "ANCIENT" at that time? This indicates an early date for Revelation's composition, as proved by Irenaeus.

In connection with what happens in Luke 21 "25 “There will be [p]signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the [q]world; for the powers of [r]the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

These things were all about to be fulfilled in Christ's first-century generation. Something that Christ said was "about to happen" was not given a 2,000-year delay for its fulfillment.

You understand that when Jesus speaks of birth pangs, that those are what happens within hours of child birth right? No waiting time. The baby is coming, and it is coming now.

You got that right. That "beginning of sorrows" would be initiated with the disciples being beaten in synagogues, taken before councils of the Sanhedrin, and killed for their gospel witness, along with those other world cataclysms occurring that led up to the "days of vengeance" against first-century Israel in AD 66-70. That "baby" came long ago back in the first century, soon after the persecution of the Apostles by the Jews of those days. In your view, the "beginning of sorrows" that the Apostles lived to experience would make those "birth pangs" prolonged to over 2,000 years and counting, with no "baby" delivered yet today. Totally improbable symbolism.

Jesus did not say that it will never be duplicated. What he said is that before and after there will never be anything worse than this tribulation period. It will be the worst time period in the existence of Earth, to the point that scripture says that if the time weren't shortened, there would be no flesh left on Earth. So, this period of time will be worse than Noah's flood, and worse than all the horrible things that have happened in history. Worse than the holocaust. Worse than Stalin killing over 60 million Russians. Worse than the two bombs dropped on Japan. Worse than the horrors of WW I and WW II. Jesus was very clear.

Again, this is putting words in Christ's mouth. Jesus did not say that Great Tribulation period would be the "worst" ever experienced. The actual words are that there had never been and never would be a tribulation "SUCH AS" the Great Tribulation. This was a particular type or nature of tribulation that had never happened before or since then.

What made that first-century Great Tribulation period of an unprecedented kind was that the entire Satanic realm would be imprisoned within the city of Jerusalem for the duration of the AD 66-70 siege. Christ warned His own "wicked generation" that the unclean spirits which He had cast out of them during their "first state" would return in seven-fold numbers more wicked than before, so that their "LAST STATE" would be worse than their "first state" when He had been ministering among them (Matthew 12:43-45).

Every unclean spirit in existence was imprisoned within the walls of besieged Jerusalem from AD 66-70 (Revelation 18:2). Isaiah 24:21-23 duplicates this prophecy of the punishment of the hosts of wicked angels all being shut up as in a prison within Jerusalem, along with the high priest "kings of the earth". After many days, these would all be "found wanting" - meaning GONE from this world.

Since the Satanic realm was entirely disposed of back in the AD 70 period when those unclean spirits "passed out of the land" (Zech. 13:2), they cannot any longer plague any city, nation, or individual ever again with their presence. This is how that type of Great Tribulation period in the first century will never be repeated again in any times future to that one.

 

[TMSO]

It is going to take a little while to correct all the misinformation in your comment:

You are confusing John the Revelator with John Mark, nephew of Barnabas. You are in company with Irenaeus in your confusion. He too got this mixed up. Lots of "Johns" were running around back then.

Okay. Some research would help you out immensely. The biggest issue with what you said is that John Mark was martyred about 7 years before Polycarp was born. So it is you who is confused. However, the apostle John didn't die until 31 years after Polycarp was born. Tradition holds that Polycarp became a believer at a young age. (He was a slave, and was taken by someone who raised him in the scripture, according to one tradition.) Depending on where he was, he may have been brought to Christ by John. There was also more than enough time for Polycarp to have been John's disciple. Consider how short a period Andrew was John the Baptist's disciple. Consider the apostles were only Jesus disciples for around three years. Irenaeus made no mistake.

It didn't say that would be the end of the "world". Only the end of that "age". It's not a good idea to put words in Christ's mouth that He didn't say.

So what is "that age". You understand that there is the age that is, and the age to come, correct? The age that is, is this world of sin, this creation. The age to come is what comes after. It will be the end of this world. You need to work on your understanding. Consider what Jesus said to the religious leaders about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, if you don't understand. He told them that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the next. So even after sin has been abolished, this one sin will not be forgiven. So if one blasphemes the Holy Spirit, there can be no salvation. Even after sin is abolished, this one sin will remain as a stain upon those who commit it.

No, I don't, because that isn't a fact. Irenaeus's comments were mistakenly translated concerning what exactly was seen in the end of Domitian's days (whether the man John or the Apocalypse were seen isn't made clear). Then the mistaken translated material was duplicated by others. You also are apparently believing the mistaken translated material.

What did Irenaeus say?
"“Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the actual revelation. For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign.” (Against Heresies, 5.30.3)"

There are actually three ways to look at this. (I read it a few times.) One does not fit in the statement, which is saying that the it should be he. That does not fit. Here are the possibilities:

1. The it, in "For it was seen", is the name in the statement "Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced..."
2. The it in "For it was seen", is the revelation that was seen in the first sentence "by the one who saw the actual revelation..."
3. The it in "For it was seen", is John, so the statement is "by the one who saw the actual revelation..."

As I consider it, 1. could be the best answer, quickly followed by 2. I was leaning towards 2, then realized that 1 also makes a lot of sense. They are connected though, as the name was seen in the revelation that was seen by John. So there really is no actual difference between 1 and 2. Number three actually makes no sense, because John wasn't seen once, but multiple times. He was seen before Domitian's reign, during Domitian's reign, and after Domitian's reign. So saying that it is John makes no rational sense here. Hence, the traditional understanding that this is speaking of the revelation (perhaps the name) should be the accepted answer. (Apparently it was understood for a number of centuries, perhaps all the way to the 15th century, when preterism came to be.) Even Eusebius as an amillennialist agreed, and he didn't even think John wrote Revelation, and considered it a spurious book.

There is no mistranslation here. The word is understood to be he, she, it "was seen". The proper understanding depends on what is being referenced.

In the very same work titled "Against Heresies" (Book V, Chapter 30) where that mistranslated material is found, Irenaeus also wrote about the 666 number, saying, "...this number being found in all the most approved and ANCIENT COPIES [of the Apocalypse]..." How could the Apocalypse be written "almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign" if even the COPIES of that Apocalypse Irenaeus himself was calling "ANCIENT" at that time? This indicates an early date for Revelation's composition, as proved by Irenaeus.

Okay. You really do need to learn how to use critical thinking. If you had read the section, you would understand that in the statement, this word ancient doesn't seem to mean what you think it means. It is just saying that the most approved copies, and the ancient (that would be oldest) copies of Revelation [that is, closest to the original manuscript], all show that John wrote 666, not 616. And even more, John himself (who died about 20 years before Irenaeus was born) testified to that, and people who saw John face to face, testified to John having said that. Considering that Irenaeus connects these manuscripts to John, and John is not some ancient person, then again, the use of the word ancient here does not mean what you think it means.

"CHAP. XXX.--ALTHOUGH CERTAIN AS TO THE NUMBER OF THE NAME OF ANTICHRIST, YET WE SHOULD COME TO NO RASH CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE NAME ITSELF, BECAUSE THIS NUMBER IS CAPABLE OF BEING FITTED TO MANY NAMES. REASONS FOR THIS POINT BEING RESERVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. ANTICHRIST'S REIGN AND DEATH."

"1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies(3) [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end),--I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.](4) Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture,(1) under that such a person must necessarily fall. Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against."

--to be continued--

 

[TMSO]

These things were all about to be fulfilled in Christ's first-century generation. Something that Christ said was "about to happen" was not given a 2,000-year delay for its fulfillment.

Jesus said soon. Why did He say soon? Because even He didn't know when. Did Jesus not spend His time stating that not even the Son of Man knew the time of His second coming? Only the Father knows. So, since it could be from the minute Jesus started speaking, until who knows when, soon is the best word to use.

You got that right. That "beginning of sorrows" would be initiated with the disciples being beaten in synagogues, taken before councils of the Sanhedrin, and killed for their gospel witness, along with those other world cataclysms occurring that led up to the "days of vengeance" against first-century Israel in AD 66-70. That "baby" came long ago back in the first century, soon after the persecution of the Apostles by the Jews of those days. In your view, the "beginning of sorrows" that the Apostles lived to experience would make those "birth pangs" prolonged to over 2,000 years and counting, with no "baby" delivered yet today. Totally improbable symbolism.

Those birth pangs have yet to be. This is where you are shortsighted, accepting these Jesuit beliefs. (Look at where Preterism came from. It came from the Catholic church, from a Jesuit during the counter reformation. It didn't become mainstream in the United States until the 1970s. It's lifespan in the US is so much shorter than dispensationalism.) The disciples knew eschatology, and the Jewish people seemed to be premillennialists before Jesus even came to Earth. However, what they believed is that the Messiah would come, he would destroy Rome, and then He would establish His kingdom in Jerusalem. They did not believe in the suffering servant. They believed that the Jewish people would face tribulation and persecution, then the Messiah comes, and takes his vengeance on the world for the Jews. And the Jews faced A LOT of tribulation before Jesus came... and after. However, Jesus states that there is a tribulation coming that will be like nothing they have ever seen, and it will never be seen again.

Since Jesus told the disciples that their understanding of the end times was wrong, they asked Him what the signs would be of His coming. (The coming where Jesus would destroy the enemies of Israel, and would establish His kingdom.) The END TIMES, when everything ends. Jesus told them. It was in the future. However, Jesus could not tell Him when His coming would be, because, as Jesus even said, only the Father knows. Jesus did not know. So He said... soon. Why? It could be any moment, from now to forever from now. The best way to express that is... soon. One can't say someday, because that doesn't include the rest of today. One can't say in the future, because then one looks too far. Soon. Keep your eyes open or you may miss it.

Again, this is putting words in Christ's mouth. Jesus did not say that Great Tribulation period would be the "worst" ever experienced. The actual words are that there had never been and never would be a tribulation "SUCH AS" the Great Tribulation. This was a particular type or nature of tribulation that had never happened before or since then.

Apparently you don't understand the history of the Jewish people. They had faced tribulation for a VERY long time. They were hunted. They were slaughtered. They were taken into captivity. They had faced it all. Now, what did Jesus tell them? There is a GREAT tribulation coming:
"such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the [c]elect’s sake those days will be shortened."

A GREAT tribulation, unlike anything ever seen on Earth before or after. So great that if the time wasn't shorted, no flesh would be saved. That is some serious stuff...that you denied Jesus said. Except it is right there. He said it. Jesus is saying it isn't simply tribulation, but that it would be a GREAT TRIBULATION, unlike anything you have ever seen. What did He say about it?

"15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath."

Why? Why is it so important to run, and why is it bad if one is pregnant or nursing babies? Why can't one go back to take things out of their house, or go get their clothes? Because there comes a great tribulation that will be unlike anything they have ever seen. So great that they can't go back home to get their things, and they will face many problems if they are pregnant or nursing children. How can you say this is simply "a particular type or nature of tribulation". I mean, really? Critical thinking isn't that difficult.

--To be continued --

 

[TMSO]

What made that first-century Great Tribulation period of an unprecedented kind was that the entire Satanic realm would be imprisoned within the city of Jerusalem for the duration of the AD 66-70 siege. Christ warned His own "wicked generation" that the unclean spirits which He had cast out of them during their "first state" would return in seven-fold numbers more wicked than before, so that their "LAST STATE" would be worse than their "first state" when He had been ministering among them (Matthew 12:43-45).

This is so very wrong. You want to know what makes this a great tribulation?

"And [f]power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth....." (1/4th of the population of earth gone...)
"7 The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the [a]earth. And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up"
"8 Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9 And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed."
"10 Then the third angel sounded: And a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. 11 The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the water, because it was made bitter."
Then the fourth angel sounded: And a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them were darkened.
Obviously there is a lot more. If you think that any of this is normal, and that the Great Tribulation just differs in kind and type you really need to learn critical thinking.

Matthew 12:43-45 is judgement against those who rejected Christ and asked for a sign from Christ to prove who He is. They refused to accept Jesus witness, just as they refused to accept Moses' testimony. The man has an unclean spirit. He is in a state, due to whatever that spirit is doing. The spirit leaves, and the man gains his right mind, and becomes a normal human again. This state is seen as his house being in order, and clean. The spirit comes back to check on his prior habitation (the man) and sees the clean state it is in and that the person is in their right mind. That spirit goes and gathers seven spirits worse than they are, and they torment the man so that his latest state (being tormented by seven truly evil spirits, and one not so evil spirit) is worse than when he just had the one unclean spirit. God even had the gospel authors write of one person where the demons said they were legion, because they were many. Yet you still completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying in this text. It wasn't terrible when they only rejected the witness of Moses, but rejecting the witness of Christ, that will make things so much worse on judgement day, that even the Queen of Shiba, who was not a Jew or a believer, would judge and condemn them, because she travelled from the ends of the Earth to hear the great wisdom God gave to Solomon, and Jesus says, something greater than Solomon is now here. (Jesus) They should be listening to Him.

Every unclean spirit in existence was imprisoned within the walls of besieged Jerusalem from AD 66-70 (Revelation 18:2). Isaiah 24:21-23 duplicates this prophecy of the punishment of the hosts of wicked angels all being shut up as in a prison within Jerusalem, along with the high priest "kings of the earth". After many days, these would all be "found wanting" - meaning GONE from this world.

Here is what Isaiah 24:21-23 says

"It shall come to pass in that day
That the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones,
And on the earth the kings of the earth.
22 They will be gathered together,
As prisoners are gathered in the [a]pit,
And will be shut up in the prison;
After many days they will be punished.
23 Then the moon will be disgraced
And the sun ashamed;
For the Lord of hosts will reign
On Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
And before His elders, gloriously."

As you can see, this doesn't say anything that you say it does. If you read the rest of Isaiah 24, you will not see one mention of Jerusalem, as the chapter is about the judgement of Earth (the world). Again, critical thinking would be nice.

Revelation 18

I will say this only once: BABYLON IS NOT ISRAEL. I should not have to repeat that. Revelation 17:18 " 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” That is NOT Israel, or Jerusalem. If you want to know one of the possibilities, read "A Woman Rides the Beast" by David Hunt. He may be wrong, but it is well researched. He believed that it is the Roman Catholic Church.

Since the Satanic realm was entirely disposed of back in the AD 70 period when those unclean spirits "passed out of the land" (Zech. 13:2), they cannot any longer plague any city, nation, or individual ever again with their presence. This is how that type of Great Tribulation period in the first century will never be repeated again in any times future to that one.

You really do need to learn critical thinking.
Zechariah 13 " “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.
4 “And it shall be in that day that every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; they will not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive. 5 But he will say, ‘I am no prophet, I am a farmer; for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.’ 6 And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your [a]arms?’ Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’"

So, can you show us where this fountain that was opened for the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness? Can you show that there were no evil spirits remaining in Jerusalem? This is speaking of what will happen after Jesus returns.

Can you tell me exactly when this happened, and continues on to now?
"16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

20 In that day “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yes, [j]every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the Lord of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts."

Well?
How about this?

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.
12 And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem:
Their flesh shall [h]dissolve while they stand on their feet,
Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets,
And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.
13 It shall come to pass in that day
That a great panic from the Lord will be among them.
Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor,
And raise his hand against his neighbor’s hand;
14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem.
And the wealth of all the surrounding nations
Shall be gathered together:
Gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance.
15 Such also shall be the plague
On the horse and the mule,
On the camel and the donkey,
And on all the cattle that will be in those camps.
So shall this plague be.

[Doesn't that sound like someone dropped a nuke on them? It even affects the animals in the same way.]

 

[3 Resurrections]

Those birth pangs have yet to be.

No, they aren't. Nobody can possibly be taken before a Sanhedrin council today for their Christian beliefs, since that is an institution that doesn't even exist anymore. No Christians are being beaten in synagogues or imprisoned by persecuting Jewish religious leaders. These were first-century happenings taking place in the book of Acts, and were part of those beginning of sorrows.

Revelation's internal witness speaks of those in the Smyrna assembly who were "about to be thrown into prison", which was part of those "birth pangs" taking place in the first century.

I will say this only once: BABYLON IS NOT ISRAEL. I should not have to repeat that. Revelation 17:18 " 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” That is NOT Israel, or Jerusalem. If you want to know one of the possibilities, read "A Woman Rides the Beast" by David Hunt. He may be wrong, but it is well researched. He believed that it is the Roman Catholic Church.

The woman riding the Scarlet Beast was Old Jerusalem, corrupted by its collaboration with the Roman government of the nation, and which had shed the blood of the prophets and servants of God from antiquity. Christ accused Jerusalem of killing all the righteous blood shed on the earth from Abel onward. No mistake - Mystery Babylon was Old Jerusalem, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Scarlet Beast was "about to arise" from the pit in JOHN'S DAY, and also "about to go into destruction" soon after - in AD 70.

Mystery Babylon the "Great city" was then ruling in John's days over the "kings of the earth" which scripture defines as the high priests of the land of Israel. There are no more of these high priests around, and haven't been since the AD 70 era. Therefore, any prophecy related to "kings of the earth" MUST have taken place while there were still high priests around to perform those predicted activities.

Zechariah 13 " “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.
4 “And it shall be in that day that every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; they will not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive. 5 But he will say, ‘I am no prophet, I am a farmer; for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.’ 6 And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your [a]arms?’ Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’"

So, can you show us where this fountain that was opened for the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness?

That's not a great translation of Zechariah 13:1. A better one is in the LXX. "In that day every place shall be opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for removal and for separation." The very reason why those Israelite families of Zechariah 12:11-14 were going to have their families separated apart, and their wives separated apart from them was due to all the blood flow that saturated Jerusalem in the AD 66-70 period. For an observant Jew, the death and shed blood in the city required being separated and set apart from their family and wives due to being rendered unclean. But so much death and bloodshed in Jerusalem took place from AD 66-70 that "every place" would be considered a place for removal and separation for the people and their wives. It didn't matter what part of the city those families were in - EVERY PLACE was considered to be a place for removal and separation, because the entire city was contaminated.

 

[TMSO]

No, they aren't. Nobody can possibly be taken before a Sanhedrin council today for their Christian beliefs, since that is an institution that doesn't even exist anymore. No Christians are being beaten in synagogues or imprisoned by persecuting Jewish religious leaders. These were first-century happenings taking place in the book of Acts, and were part of those beginning of sorrows.

What does that have to do with anything. Jesus wasn't talking about Christians and the church, but Jews, believers and non-believers.

Revelation's internal witness speaks of those in the Smyrna assembly who were "about to be thrown into prison", which was part of those "birth pangs" taking place in the first century.

Eisegesis. Revelation was written in 90-95 AD.

The woman riding the Scarlet Beast was Old Jerusalem, corrupted by its collaboration with the Roman government of the nation, and which had shed the blood of the prophets and servants of God from antiquity. Christ accused Jerusalem of killing all the righteous blood shed on the earth from Abel onward. No mistake - Mystery Babylon was Old Jerusalem, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Scarlet Beast was "about to arise" from the pit in JOHN'S DAY, and also "about to go into destruction" soon after - in AD 70.

There is absolutely no support for this. No support at all.

Mystery Babylon the "Great city" was then ruling in John's days over the "kings of the earth" which scripture defines as the high priests of the land of Israel. There are no more of these high priests around, and haven't been since the AD 70 era. Therefore, any prophecy related to "kings of the earth" MUST have taken place while there were still high priests around to perform those predicted activities.

Can you present a word for word scripture that states that the high priests of the land of Israel are those who reign over the kings of the earth. Don't just say that it is defined, and then not place the reference, so that one can see the context and explain why it doesn't mean what you think it means.

That's not a great translation of Zechariah 13:1. A better one is in the LXX. "In that day every place shall be opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for removal and for separation." The very reason why those Israelite families of Zechariah 12:11-14 were going to have their families separated apart, and their wives separated apart from them was due to all the blood flow that saturated Jerusalem in the AD 66-70 period. For an observant Jew, the death and shed blood in the city required being separated and set apart from their family and wives due to being rendered unclean. But so much death and bloodshed in Jerusalem took place from AD 66-70 that "every place" would be considered a place for removal and separation for the people and their wives. It didn't matter what part of the city those families were in - EVERY PLACE was considered to be a place for removal and separation, because the entire city was contaminated.

If you are going to based your argument solely on saying, your translation is bad... that is not a valid argument. You only say it is a better one because it agrees with you. Perhaps if you go back to the original Hebrew manuscript that was discovered that is dated to around the time the spetuagint was still being written?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Eisegesis. Revelation was written in 90-95 AD.

Not by all of Revelation's internal witness, which pins down the composition to sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60.

There is absolutely no support for this. No support at all.

I am quoting Christ and scripture for this point about Old Jerusalem being Mystery Babylon. Too bad you don't appear to accept their testimony.

Can you present a word for word scripture that states that the high priests of the land of Israel are those who reign over the kings of the earth.

That's not what I said. Read what I wrote more carefully. It was the woman riding the Scarlet Beast (the woman being Mystery Babylon - "that great city") that was then ruling over the high priest "kings of the earth" in those days. This was an upside-down state of affairs for the high priesthood, which was supposed to be ruling over Jerusalem instead, according to the way God originally designed for them to operate in being the "ruler of the people".

Rome-governed Jerusalem had the high priesthood under its thumb in those days, appointing or deposing high priests to the position at their whim. Even the high priests' garments had been stored in the Roman fortress of Antonia, to be doled out for use on the festival days, again at Rome's decision. The high priests could not pass a death sentence without asking Rome's permission first, as in the case of Christ. "We have no king but Caesar" was a blatant admission of how corrupted the high priesthood in Jerusalem was in those days.

I have given some scriptures before that show us the definition of the high priests as "kings of the earth" in several other posts, but if you need it here also, you need to read the contexts of Psalms 2:2, Matthew 17:25, Lamentations 4:12, and Revelation 16:14 (where the "kings of the earth" are presented as separate from the "kings of the whole world").

If you are going to based your argument solely on saying, your translation is bad... that is not a valid argument. You only say it is a better one because it agrees with you.

No, I prefer the LXX many times because it was read and used by Christ and that generation of Apostles.

 

[EarlyActs]

The old and new Jerusalem theme starts in Is 65-66.

 

[TMSO]

Not by all of Revelation's internal witness, which pins down the composition to sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60.

Wishful thinking is all. There are some rather direct external evidence to the prophecy not even being SEEN until the end of Domitian's reign.

I am quoting Christ and scripture for this point about Old Jerusalem being Mystery Babylon. Too bad you don't appear to accept their testimony.

So please. Quote it. Include the reference.

That's not what I said. Read what I wrote more carefully. It was the woman riding the Scarlet Beast (the woman being Mystery Babylon - "that great city") that was then ruling over the high priest "kings of the earth" in those days. This was an upside-down state of affairs for the high priesthood, which was supposed to be ruling over Jerusalem instead, according to the way God originally designed for them to operate in being the "ruler of the people".

There is a woman in Revelation already, who is identified as Israel, so... no. Revelation actually says that God defends her.

Rome-governed Jerusalem had the high priesthood under its thumb in those days, appointing or deposing high priests to the position at their whim. Even the high priests' garments had been stored in the Roman fortress of Antonia, to be doled out for use on the festival days, again at Rome's decision. The high priests could not pass a death sentence without asking Rome's permission first, as in the case of Christ. "We have no king but Caesar" was a blatant admission of how corrupted the high priesthood in Jerusalem was in those days.

Who were obviously not ruling over the world at all, and if you read the Old Testament (I'm on my way through it again), they never did.

I have given some scriptures before that show us the definition of the high priests as "kings of the earth" in several other posts, but if you need it here also, you need to read the contexts of Psalms 2:2, Matthew 17:25, Lamentations 4:12, and Revelation 16:14 (where the "kings of the earth" are presented as separate from the "kings of the whole world").

Psalm 2
"Why do the [a]nations [b]rage,
And the people plot a [c]vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed,[d] saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”"

You are right. The context makes it so much clearer that you are wrong. (I read this recently, and yeah... no.)

Matthew 17
"24 When they had come to [h]Capernaum, those who received the [i]temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”
25 He said, “Yes.”
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”
26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”
Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a [j]piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”"

Again. You are right. The context makes it so much clearer that you are wrong. Jesus is speaking in generalized terms. So yeah... no.

Lamentations 4
"11 The Lord has fulfilled His fury,
He has poured out His fierce anger.
He kindled a fire in Zion,
And it has devoured its foundations.
12 The kings of the earth,
And all inhabitants of the world,
Would not have believed
That the adversary and the enemy
Could enter the gates of Jerusalem—"

Again. You are right. The context makes it so much clearer that you are wrong. So yea. no.

Revelation 16
"
12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings [g]of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
15 “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.”
16 And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, [h]Armageddon."

Um. If you knew the context of this part of Revelation, which is where they are going to attack Jerusalem... no. Again, the context betrays.

 

[TMSO]

The poster @Wordsmith courteously requested recently that I submit internal evidence from Revelation itself which proves the date of its composition. Many scholars have spent copious amounts of time and full-length books on this very subject of Revelation's composition date, which I believe was written sometime around early AD 60, as I am going to attempt to prove in a comparatively brief series of comments.

As I have written before, my first introduction to the view of Preterism 12 years ago was in a careful study of Dr. Gentry's dissertation, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which covers the external evidence that is used for a late date, and proves where it is defective or lacking. On the other hand, some of Dr. Gentry's proofs for an early date are flawed, and he is also missing several proofs of internal evidence for an early date as well. He proposes a mid-to-late 60's date, which is a few years too late by Revelation's own internal witness.

For the Preterist views to hold water, this evidence of the dating of Revelation is an absolute must, since so many of the prophecies hang on the time-relevant language which John used extensively throughout the book. This language itself is the determining factor for anyone trying to interpret Revelation's visions. When John announced that all his visions of the future were "at hand" in his Revelation 1:3 introduction and his Revelation 22:10 conclusion to the book, if we don't know what year the book was written, then we can't understand which generation these "at hand" visions applied to.

There are enough pieces of internal evidence in Revelation itself to cross-reference and triangulate with each other, which all unite to present a very precise time frame for the composition of the book around early AD 60.


Revelation written just after early AD 60

We can begin with John's own statement in Revelation 1:9 of his then-current situation of a tribulation period which he was experiencing at the time. "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."
Christ had predicted for His disciples that they would endure tribulation and be persecuted from city to city in their evangelistic efforts during those early years of the church. So, which particular period of "tribulation" was John then experiencing? It has to be the one which coincides with all the other early-date internal evidence in Revelation - the one which occurred in the aftermath of the Ephesian riot of the silversmiths in AD 57; Ephesus being the capital of all Asia at the time, with the island of Patmos some 60 miles southwest of Ephesus, and under its jurisdiction.

Paul spoke about this period of persecution in Asia in 2 Corinthians 1:8 (written around AD 57). "For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life:" Paul said that in this case God had "delivered us from so great a death..." on this occasion, was even then continuing to deliver them, and would yet deliver them.

The riot in Ephesus instigated by Demetrius and the silversmiths against Paul's teachings was described in rather understated terms in Acts 19:23. "And the same time there arose no small stir about that way..." We've all read about the screaming 2-hour pep rally for the goddess Diana in the Ephesus theater which seated some 24,000, with Paul's two traveling companions dragged into the theater in front of the screaming throng. Paul desperately attempted to join his companions, but was prevented by other disciples - quite possibly Aquila and Priscilla, whom Paul later praised for "laying down their necks" on behalf of his life (Romans 16:3-4). The murder of the faithful Antipas on the Pergamos altar in Revelation 2:13 probably took place during this same time in Asia, as a fallout effect of this Ephesian riot.

Once the riot was finally calmed down by the town clerk, the Jews present in that capital city of Asia still remained actively opposed to the widespread success which Paul's teaching had caused in all of Asia (Acts 19:10, 26). Taking advantage of the Greeks' hatred for Paul's teaching, the similar hatred that the Ephesian Jews hostile to the faith bore for Paul continued to stir persecution afterward for the saints in Asia; so much so, that during Paul's AD 60 visit to Jerusalem, those Ephesian Jews seeing him there in the temple stirred up the people against Paul and attempted to kill him then and there on the temple stairs (Acts 21:27-31).

Paul had been continually warning the Ephesian elders for three years that after he left them in AD 60, "grievous wolves" entering the church would begin to draw the disciples away from the faith by perverse teachings (Acts 20:29-31). The faithfulness of the Ephesian church would begin to drift from the time of Paul's departure in AD 60 onward. This same defection was recorded by John as an accusation against the Ephesian church of having "left your first love" in Revelation 2:4.

In general, the Ephesian church had a commended record of their past labor, patience, a refusal to tolerate evil, having borne times of testing with patience, and not fainting under it (Revelation 2:2-3). This applied to their faithfulness in the period of persecution for the Ephesian church between the Ephesus riot in AD 57 and when Paul finally left them in AD 60. That was the point when their faith quickly began to drift. John noticed this and rebuked them for leaving their "first love" in Revelation 2:4. This means that John was writing Revelation in AD 60 when that defection was first starting to evidence itself in Ephesus. This defection would grow progressively worse in Asia towards the end of Paul's life before his AD 67 martyrdom.

John himself said he was a fellow "companion" experiencing this "tribulation" period in Asia, which was the fallout effect of the Ephesian riot in AD 57. The persecution and "perverse" teaching which the Ephesus church would experience would shortly result in Paul's discouraging estimate of the state of all the Asian churches in 2 Timothy 1:15 (written around AD 67 just before Paul's martyrdom). "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me..." Only Onesiphoris was then being commended for his ministry to Paul in Ephesus (2 Timothy 1:16-18). The majority of the churches in Asia by then had distanced themselves from Paul under the withering persecution by the hostile Jews and also the Greeks who worshipped Diana.

To be continued...

This is loaded with conjecture and assumption. You don't choose a persecution because it fits what you are trying to prove. Consider that Nero did not normally, at all, utilize exile as a punishment. However, for Domitian, it was the favored form of punishment. Revelation written 90-95 AD. Note that Irenaeus wrote that it was written towards the end of Domitian's reign, and that the information is good because there were still people around who were alive at that time to tell him. First person information. It is due to all of this that the church understood for centuries that the Revelation was written in 90-95 AD. I'm not sure anyone ever postulated anything different until the Jesuits came up with preterism during the counter reformation. (the attempt to make protestants catholics again.)

A lot of time is wasted on a persecution that no one can actually prove is the right one. Rome was persecuting Christians for a while. I mean, with Nero telling the people that the christians burned down Rome and all. No need for it to be the Ephesian persecution. There was plenty to go around.