Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[3 Resurrections]

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.

Try Googling the Syriac Peshitta title page for Revelation - it specifically says that John was in the isle of Patmos by order of Nero - not Domitian. This is an ancient source.

As for Irenaeus's statement, he did not write that the Apocalypse was seen almost in Domitian's days. There is no clear statement as to what was seen then, whether John the man was seen or the Apocalypse. The way it was originally written, it can be either of these that was seen. By context, it is the more likely that Irenaeus was saying John was seen almost in Domitian's days, since he is the one who could have revealed the meaning of the number at that time if it had been important. Also, since Irenaeus in the very same document of "Against Heresies" speaks of "all the most approved and ancient copies" of the apocalypse, then the original Apocalypse would have been even older than that. You can't have "all the most approved and ancient copies" of the apocalypse in Domitian's days and have it being just being written at the same time. That is contradictory.

 

[TMSO]

Try Googling the Syriac Peshitta title page for Revelation - it specifically says that John was in the isle of Patmos by order of Nero - not Domitian. This is an ancient source.

I did, however due to the actual lateness in date for this writing, it can't be accepted. It comes from the 7th century. There were only pieces found. It is not an ancient source. Irenaeus writings are an ancient source. Eusebius is an ancient source. This came after.

As for Irenaeus's statement, he did not write that the Apocalypse was seen almost in Domitian's days. There is no clear statement as to what was seen then, whether John the man was seen or the Apocalypse. The way it was originally written, it can be either of these that was seen. By context, it is the more likely that Irenaeus was saying John was seen almost in Domitian's days, since he is the one who could have revealed the meaning of the number at that time if it had been important.

“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)

The point Irenaeus said is that if it was important, since the revelation was seen at the end of Domitian's reign, John would have said something. If the revelation was earlier, no one would have cared anymore, since everything was already fulfilled. If the name of the person was important, that is, if that person was actually alive at the time, hence of importance, John would have told everyone who it was. John did not, therefore it was not important, because that person was not yet alive. Why look for someone who isn't alive yet. He gave the 666, so that people could figure it out.

Also, since Irenaeus in the very same document of "Against Heresies" speaks of "all the most approved and ancient copies" of the apocalypse, then the original Apocalypse would have been even older than that. You can't have "all the most approved and ancient copies" of the apocalypse in Domitian's days and have it being just being written at the same time. That is contradictory.

I'm surprised that you think 70 years is ancient? Old, sure. Ancient? You do realize that he was going through those copies closest to the original (so, probably about 70 years old) to ensure that errors he saw creeping into the church were actually errors. He was looking to see that all the copies he looked at, as far back as he could go, showed 666 and not 616. So, using this and making up some story about it, is not how this should be handled. Perhaps you could read how Eusebius handled it. As a greek, he read it as "it was seen" being the revelatioin. And he is native. He would know the nuance and flow of what Irenaeus wrote. And that is exactly how he read it. And that is what he gave commentary on. (Not much, considering he didn't believe John wrote Revelation in the first place.)

 

[3 Resurrections]

For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign.”

That is an assumed translation for what was seen. The word can be translated as being either he, she, or it that was seen. You and all the other translators want to favor the choice of the word "it" which was seen, when it could just as well be "he" that was seen (meaning John in the context). The context of Irenaeus's writings tells us that we should go with "He" (John) that was seen at the end of Domitian's reign, because of Irenaeus's speaking about the "ancient copies" of Revelation circulating in his days. The context meant that since John was seen at the end of Domitian's reign, that he would have still been around to personally announce the meaning of the number to the believers if it was necessary.

Your argument really twists the meaning of "ancient copies" of the Apocalypse being available in Domitian's day. It is not my definition of what "ancient" means that makes the point. It is the fact that there were approved, AGED COPIES of the original Apocalypse that had been circulating in Domitians's days. This refutes the presumption that the Apocalypse was just then being written for the first time at the end of Domitian's reign.

This means the vast majority of the late-date argument is based on a single word inserted by a translator by his own choice into Irenaeus' writings. This is extremely thin proof of a late date, especially when we have all the internal evidence in Revelation itself which points to the early date - specifically AD 59 / 60. At any rate, all external arguments for a late date are supposed to take a back seat to this internal evidence which takes priority over everything else.

 

[TMSO]

That is an assumed translation for what was seen. The word can be translated as being either he, she, or it that was seen. You and all the other translators want to favor the choice of the word "it" which was seen, when it could just as well be "he" that was seen (meaning John in the context).

The reason why we see it is because of grammer. The reason others see John is because it has to be or their whole belief system collapses. A single lynchpin and the belief system fails. In proper grammer, it is understood that the reference is back to the last thing mentioned, which is the Revelation that was "saw". Which is why the next statement says "was seen". In language that means you are looking for something that was seen (whatever tense) in the previous statement. The object connected to seen is the Revelation, therefore the object for seen in the second sentence is the Revelation. It also helps that Eusebius, who knew the language as a native (if I recall), goes with this understanding.

The context of Irenaeus's writings tells us that we should go with "He" (John) that was seen at the end of Domitian's reign, because of Irenaeus's speaking about the "ancient copies" of Revelation circulating in his days. The context meant that since John was seen at the end of Domitian's reign, that he would have still been around to personally announce the meaning of the number to the believers if it was necessary.

You are talking about two disconnected things here. This section he is saying that if the name of the beast was important, such as this person was alive, or coming quickly, John would have told someone. However, it apparently wasn't important, such as this person isn't even alive yet, so John didn't tell anyone. This is underscored by the Revelation having been seen at the end of Domitian's reign. If the fulfillment was right there, John would have explained to someone outside of his writing. If it had to do with seeing John, Polycarp saw John AFTER Domitian's reign, as the Bishop of Smyrna to whom John had written the letter. Based on the earliest reference of Polycarp being the bishop of Smyrna, it is quite possible that he was the Bishop of Smyrna right around the time of Domitian's reign. He could not be the Bishop of Smyrna in 60 AD, and some have saiid, given the late date for the evangelizing of Smyrna, it may not have been a church yet in 60AD. Also, I think it was you, said that ALL the churches in Asia were in turmoil and had fallen away. Smyrna is one of those churches being near Ephesus. So how could it be the perfect church, if the church was in complete turmoil?

Your argument really twists the meaning of "ancient copies" of the Apocalypse being available in Domitian's day. It is not my definition of what "ancient" means that makes the point. It is the fact that there were approved, AGED COPIES of the original Apocalypse that had been circulating in Domitians's days. This refutes the presumption that the Apocalypse was just then being written for the first time at the end of Domitian's reign.

What are you talking about. Irenaues wasn't born until 30 or 40 years AFTER the end of Domitian's reign. These ancient copies are what Irenaues was looking at at his time (at what 20-40 years of age?) You are leaning to much on the translation, which, due to it not being english, the meaning may not have fully come across. Which is why I am telling you that he is talking about the earliest copies, closest to the original that he can get, that are approved, yes this is what it claims to be, and looking to see if 666 was actaully 616. This does absolutely nothing to refute anything, because the difference is only about 20 to 30 years. Irenaeus was born in 130 AD. The reason he says that it was enar to his time is because that is only about 36 years before he is born. Anyone who was 20 years old could still be alive, and may have heard about the revelation John saw at the time of Domitian's reign.

This means the vast majority of the late-date argument is based on a single word inserted by a translator by his own choice into Irenaeus' writings. This is extremely thin proof of a late date, especially when we have all the internal evidence in Revelation itself which points to the early date - specifically AD 59 / 60. At any rate, all external arguments for a late date are supposed to take a back seat to this internal evidence which takes priority over everything else.

Wow. There are a lot of translators who would probably love to take a shot at you. Apparently you don't know how translation works. Eusebius read straight from Irenaeus as a greek/palestinian, and he didn't even have a preferred understanding, since he didn't believe John wrote Revelation. He also says it is "it was seen", and he knows the grammer. His explanation bears it out. You are picking at straws. The funny thing is, if Revelation was written in 90 AD it doesn't matter what scriptural support you can dig up. Your belief REQUIRES the early date.

 

[3 Resurrections]

TMSO, all this line of reasoning is off track from the focus of this original post, which is the INTERNAL evidence for dating Revelation's composition. Frankly, Irenaeus was a man who put on his socks one at a time like everyone else. He wasn't inspired, and no one should regard his writings as such. The man didn't have a clue what the number 666 was applying to. Neither did he really have a clue who actually wrote Revelation to begin with (who was not that John, son of Zebedee). So to me it is immaterial what comments Irenaeus made about John, since Irenaeus didn't even realize which John it was who wrote the book.

NONE of what is considered external evidence has any credibility if it counters the internal witness of Revelation's composition date which points to an AD 59 / 60 date. It appears that you are studiously avoiding every bit of this internal witness. Why is that? Why would you give more credence to those who did not compose the book of Revelation over the man who actually received the visions? This is entirely upside down.

 

[TMSO]

TMSO, all this line of reasoning is off track from the focus of this original post, which is the INTERNAL evidence for dating Revelation's composition. Frankly, Irenaeus was a man who put on his socks one at a time like everyone else. He wasn't inspired, and no one should regard his writings as such. The man didn't have a clue what the number 666 was applying to. Neither did he really have a clue who actually wrote Revelation to begin with (who was not that John, son of Zebedee). So to me it is immaterial what comments Irenaeus made about John, since Irenaeus didn't even realize which John it was who wrote the book.

NONE of what is considered external evidence has any credibility if it counters the internal witness of Revelation's composition date which points to an AD 59 / 60 date. It appears that you are studiously avoiding every bit of this internal witness. Why is that? Why would you give more credence to those who did not compose the book of Revelation over the man who actually received the visions? This is entirely upside down.

He is the closest to first person verification of the date of Revelation. That isn't special. I am first person verification that I got up this morning. Does that make me special? I am first person verification that Colin Powell spoke at the national mall during the Spice Road exhibition back in 2002. How? I was there. Irenaeus is saying that his information is from people who were there. That is why the closeness to his lifetime and Domitian is so important. People were there. He got that information. He wrote it down.

For internal evidence, the reason John doesn't write about Jerusalem is because it had already been destroyed before 90 AD, when he wrote. There was nothing to write about. Also, his focus is global, not local. This is the revelation of Jesus to the whole world. Consider that now, in our time, if those two witnesses came to earth, and were killed, the WHOLE WORLD would know about it within the first few minutes. Through social media, youtube, the news, everyone will be able to see those two witnesses, at the same time. This prophecy can now be literally fulfilled. Problems that people had in the past was they couldn't see "how" they could be fulfilled. It is now that weapons of mass destruction actually literally fulfill the portion that talks about the plague God brings upon those who attack Jerusalem. It very much sounds like someone dropped a nuke on them. People call for a WW III in order for things to happen, and as it so happens, we are on the cusp right now. Just a few wrong or calculated moves on the world stage, and in we go.

 

[Mr GLee]

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.

What time period it was penned is not needed. One third of human history had passed before our God moved Moses to record .

In chapter 23 when the Son of man, Jesus walked out he was given words from the Father and made desolate the abomination of desolation.

Mankind in the place of eternal God who does not dwell in temples made with the dying hands of mankind

Again word from the father not "will be" made desolate "is desolate" .

Mathew 23: 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 24. . . He walked out, the apostles that walked by sight begged him to take a second look. They must of thought he had his eyes closed the first time . Then in the twinkling of the eyes the were moved to the high mountain to represent all the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our Lord,

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

No sign to wonder after was given we walk by faith the eternal unseen things of God


Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas . . . . . . . (fulfilled by the Son of man, Jesus.)

He comes and leaves like a thief in the night. We can watch like Noah but God does not give information to wonder after (no need)

 

[3 Resurrections]

He is the closest to first person verification of the date of Revelation.

No, Irenaeus was NOT the closest to "first person verification" of the date of Revelation. That honor goes to the one who originally wrote down the visions of the book himself under inspiration. Anyone following the author himself is ranked as an external source which is not inspired. There was error even during the early church which the Apostles had to correct with their epistles. Just because a statement by a particular historian or theologian is of more ancient vintage than another does not mean it is free from error.

For internal evidence, the reason John doesn't write about Jerusalem is because it had already been destroyed before 90 AD, when he wrote. There was nothing to write about.

Two assumptions are being made here: #1, that John did not write about Jerusalem, which is obviously not true (Revelation 11:8 - "the city where also our Lord was crucified" being only one of those many references to Jerusalem), and #2, that Jerusalem had already been destroyed when he wrote. This is also obviously not true if John was told in Revelation 11:1-2 to measure the Jerusalem temple of God and the altar, and those who worshipped in it. Old Jerusalem and its physical temple were not yet destroyed at that point.

None of the internal evidence listed above for an early composition date for Revelation from scripture and Revelation itself is being addressed at all. Why is there an unwillingness to face this internal evidence and attempt to refute it? The time-relevant language in Revelation is present throughout the book and can't be disregarded. This book was written purposefully for that first-century generation to read or hear and to comprehend with a little wisdom thrown in. After all, Daniel had once said about those first-century times that "none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand". These events being fulfilled at a time so far removed from us has tended to blur our own current understanding of what John meant, but at least the wise among those John wrote to did comprehend his meaning.

 

[TMSO]

What time period it was penned is not needed. One third of human history had passed before our God moved Moses to record .

For the preterists, they need it. If it was not written in 60AD (prior to 70AD) then preterism collapses. It has no support. Preterism requires Revelation to be history at 70AD. John telling the people what was coming in 70AD.

In chapter 23 when the Son of man, Jesus walked out he was given words from the Father and made desolate the abomination of desolation.

Mankind in the place of eternal God who does not dwell in temples made with the dying hands of mankind

Again word from the father not "will be" made desolate "is desolate" .

Mathew 23: 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 24. . . He walked out, the apostles that walked by sight begged him to take a second look. They must of thought he had his eyes closed the first time . Then in the twinkling of the eyes the were moved to the high mountain to represent all the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our Lord,

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

No sign to wonder after was given we walk by faith the eternal unseen things of God


Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas . . . . . . . (fulfilled by the Son of man, Jesus.)

He comes and leaves like a thief in the night. We can watch like Noah but God does not give information to wonder after (no need)

As the kicker, Preterists believe Jesus already returned... (I speak not of partial preterists)

 

[TMSO]

No, Irenaeus was NOT the closest to "first person verification" of the date of Revelation. That honor goes to the one who originally wrote down the visions of the book himself under inspiration. Anyone following the author himself is ranked as an external source which is not inspired. There was error even during the early church which the Apostles had to correct with their epistles. Just because a statement by a particular historian or theologian is of more ancient vintage than another does not mean it is free from error.

Irenaeus is the closest we have to first person verification. John didn't leave any writing saying "I wrote Revelation on such and such a date." All we have from John is that he was on Patmos. Someone several centuries later added more. As such, again, Irenaeus is the closest we have to first person verification. Why? He was born 24 years later. John died about 12-14 years before Irenaeus was born. There would be plenty of people around who would know if John had mentioned who the beast would be. Why? Because the revelation was towards the end of Domitian's reign.

Two assumptions are being made here: #1, that John did not write about Jerusalem, which is obviously not true (Revelation 11:8 - "the city where also our Lord was crucified" being only one of those many references to Jerusalem), and #2, that Jerusalem had already been destroyed when he wrote. This is also obviously not true if John was told in Revelation 11:1-2 to measure the Jerusalem temple of God and the altar, and those who worshipped in it. Old Jerusalem and its physical temple were not yet destroyed at that point.

That is rather spurious. You mean, John didn't talk about Jerusalem being destroyed, or all the terrible things that were going to happen? Again, he didn't write about Jerusalem. And yes, it can very well be that Jerusalem had already been destroyed. This would push Revelation out to a world wide tribualtion (which is basically how Revelation reads). It has moved from Israel to the world.

None of the internal evidence listed above for an early composition date for Revelation from scripture and Revelation itself is being addressed at all. Why is there an unwillingness to face this internal evidence and attempt to refute it?

It isn't actual evidence.

The time-relevant language in Revelation is present throughout the book and can't be disregarded. This book was written purposefully for that first-century generation to read or hear and to comprehend with a little wisdom thrown in.

There is absolutely no evidence for this. It was written because the end was coming, no one knows when, and we must be ready.

After all, Daniel had once said about those first-century times that "none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand". These events being fulfilled at a time so far removed from us has tended to blur our own current understanding of what John meant, but at least the wise among those John wrote to did comprehend his meaning.

You need to provide references. You can't just say this is how it is. The only thing I remember Daniel writing that is related to the first century is when the Messiah was cut off in the 62nd week.

 

[3 Resurrections]

For the preterists, they need it. If it was not written in 60AD (prior to 70AD) then preterism collapses. It has no support. Preterism requires Revelation to be history at 70AD. John telling the people what was coming in 70AD.

This is not true. Preterists do not "need" the scriptures to say anything. We do not come to the scripture forcing an early date composition in order for it to fit our preconceived opinions of what it says. It is the time-relevant language in the scripture which dictates to us what we are to believe - not the other way around. It is not Preterism that requires the future events in Revelation to be fulfilled in the first-century. It is the scripture's language itself that demands this of its readers. If you can't catch that time-relevant language connecting events to the first century, you definitely need more study.

As the kicker, Preterists believe Jesus already returned... (I speak not of partial preterists)

This isn't exactly the truth either. Preterists believe Jesus in Matthew 16:27-28 when HE said that some of those standing in front of Him would not die before they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. This was repeated three times in the gospels for confirmation. This means one of two things: either some of those first-century audience are still alive today, or Christ returned in that first-century generation as He promised He would.

Irenaeus is the closest we have to first person verification. John didn't leave any writing saying "I wrote Revelation on such and such a date."

This tells me that you must not have even bothered to read any of the internal evidence given above for an early date. Of course John didn't give actual numbers for dates, but he most definitely gave datable events that are known and recorded in history.

You need to provide references. You can't just say this is how it is. The only thing I remember Daniel writing that is related to the first century is when the Messiah was cut off in the 62nd week.

I am presuming (perhaps in error) that if I quote a text or a phrase from Daniel that you will recognize it and the context it sits in. Perhaps you can't do that. If you remember only that single first century event of when the Messiah was cut off in the middle of the 70th week, you should definitely be doing some more study because more first-century events are there in Daniel. But at 1:00 in the morning, I haven't got time or energy to do the homework for you.

 

[Mr GLee]

For the preterists, they need it. If it was not written in 60AD (prior to 70AD) then preterism collapses. It has no support. Preterism requires Revelation to be history at 70AD. John telling the people what was coming in 70AD.

The word of God is eternal .Again when it was inspired it was made desolate . The Father gave Jesus the prophet words in Matthew 23 what he says came to pass. He declared it desolate . No sign to wonder after was needed to fulfilled someone idea of 70 AD some 40 or so years after it was made desolate . Is desolate not will be .

 

[Mr GLee]

. It is the time-relevant language in the scripture which dictates to us what we are to believe

Are you promoting dispensations?Dating the undateable (we walk by faith the unseen things of God) he works faithfully as a labor of love the same in every time period . The thousand represent a unknown

This isn't exactly the truth either. Preterists believe Jesus in Matthew 16:27-28 when HE said that some of those standing in front of Him would not die before they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. This was repeated three times in the gospels for confirmation. This means one of two things: either some of those first-century audience are still alive today, or Christ returned in that first-century generation as He promised He would.

The Son of man coming in the kingdom was represented by the three day and night demonstration When the Father said it is finished . It was
from the foundation of the world the six days the Father did work .By it they saw the Son of man lifted by the Father

I would be careful in literally numbers days or people

2 Corinthians 10: 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

The flesh has no power to war.

2 Corinthians 10:7 Do ye look on things after the "outward appearance?" if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

Outward literal the measure of men Not the golden measure of the Father.

2 Corinthians 10:12-14 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you. For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ

I would think we look to the golden measure a unknown and not the literal measure of the messenger John but hidden from mankind measure

Revelation 21:15-17 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

(angel ) Messenger prophet John his measure , not the signified understanding the golden measure .used in all parables

 

[3 Resurrections]

The word of God is eternal .Again when it was inspired it was made desolate . The Father gave Jesus the prophet words in Matthew 23 what he says came to pass. He declared it desolate . No sign to wonder after was needed to fulfilled someone idea of 70 AD some 40 or so years after it was made desolate . Is desolate not will be .

Yes. No argument with this point. Jesus pronounced that "Your house IS left to you desolate". God's house the temple had already become desolate due to the corrupt activity going on inside it - namely, that "Den of thieves" thing Christ hated so much.

God had to "take out the trash" in AD 70 by tearing down and burning up the whole thing that was outmoded and had died when the New Covenant in His blood was set up. That was because the Jews were still clinging to the temple and the corrupt Levitical high priesthood. They were making these into an idol in competition with Christ who became the New Covenant Great High Priest with that "change in the law" which Hebrews 7:12 spoke of.

Are you promoting dispensations?Dating the undateable (we walk by faith the unseen things of God) he works faithfully as a labor of love the same in every time period . The thousand represent a unknown

No, I'm not promoting the kind of Dispensationalism you are probably thinking of. The nature of God never changes from one age to another, but He definitely shakes things up and has set up different environments in which the children of men have operated over the millennia.

The Son of man coming in the kingdom was represented by the three day and night demonstration

Not exactly. The kingdom with Christ as our Great High Priest was originally established on Christ's resurrection-day ascension to heaven (after that 3-day/3 night demonstration) when God consecrated Him in that role (as Peter confirmed on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:29-36). Christ continued to rule from that throne, and returned to earth in AD 70, while still acting as King of that kingdom.

The time-relevant language in the book of Revelation told of the near arrival of that bodily return of Christ. We are not supposed to take those specific time-relevant terms (which foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century) and transport their significance into another time period to which they do not apply. To avoid that error, it is most necessary to know exactly what time period this book was originally addressed to. And the internal witness of the book itself confirms that early date of composition, specifically in AD 59 / 60.

 

[Mr GLee]

God had to "take out the trash" in AD 70 by tearing down and burning up the whole thing that was outmoded and had died when the New Covenant in His blood was set up. That was because the Jews were still clinging to the temple and the corrupt Levitical high priesthood. They were making these into an idol in competition with Christ who became the New Covenant Great High Priest with that "change in the law" which Hebrews 7:12 spoke of

I would think it was the false prophecy sent a false apostles that is was made desolate. No sign was given

Kings in Israel the abomination of desolation made desolate.

 

[TMSO]

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.

Since you said I didn't do this, I will do it again. Please give DTGs for ALL of the seals, trumpets and bowls, for the events given as written. (You did say that John gave dated events.) John said that everything he was writing was prophecy, and had not yet occurred. "3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

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."

There was tribulation during the reign of Domitian. So that would also support Revelation being written in 90AD. From Foxxe's Book of Martyrs:
"The Second Persecution, Under Domitian, A.D. 81
The emperor Domitian, who was naturally inclined to cruelty, first slew his brother, and then raised the second persecution against the Christians. In his rage he put to death some of the Roman senators, some through malice; and others to confiscate their estates. He then commanded all the lineage of David be put to death.
Among the numerous martyrs that suffered during this persecution was Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, who was crucified; and St. John, who was boiled in oil, and afterward banished to Patmos. Flavia, the daughter of a Roman senator, was likewise banished to Pontus; and a law was made, "That no Christian, once brought before the tribunal, should be exempted from punishment without renouncing his religion.""

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?

See above, the second persecution under Domitian. There were multiple persecutions at the beginning of the church age.

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.

There is no connection between John's persecution under Domitian and this riot. As for Antipas, tradition states that he was martyred around 92 AD under Domitian, while some say it was under Nero. No one is sure when he died. Tradition leans to 92AD, or during the reign of Domitian. You should read about Domitian. He believed he was god, and made people treat him that way. The main issue with figuring out who he was is that the Senate that came after him tried to remove him from history by destroying everything he did, melting down what he made, etc. (Apparently they were rich after melting it down. He was so full of himself.)

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.

That is assumption and conjecture. Antipas may have died in 92AD under Domitian. This would put Revelation as late as 95AD. It would also mean that Antipas was caught up in the same persecution as John. Either Nero or Domitian. Again, Fox's book of Martyrs says Domitian. That would again be the original tradition from the early church. Revelation written during the reign of Domitian. Also, some theologians say that the congregation was established towards the end of the first century, not the middle.

You talk a lot about Paul, with no established connections to when John wrote Revelation.

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.

This is conjecture. When you read what they are commended for, this is more than just three years and then Paul left. This is the church persevering, until their love turned cold. Their worship became empty. Orthodox. Rote. Repent and do again what they did in the past. Labor for God and not become weary. Show patience. John doesn't say that they have become evil. God was no longer the focus.

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.

If John mentioned Antipas for Pergamum, why didn't he mention Paul in this letter. Antipas was used as an example, but Paul wasn't used as an example here. They were good, while Paul was there? Why would short lived perseverance with help be announced as a positive to the bishop of Ephesus, if it was Paul's doing? This writing is to the church, not Paul.

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.

Again. Conjecture. There was also a period of persecution under Domitian.

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..."

That would include... Smyrna, another church in Asia. Except that Smyrna is one of two churches that did not receive any negative marks. Philadelphia was the other.

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.Domi

So far, all this evidence is conjecture. It all hinges on John and Antipas being persecuted by Nero, while tradition has held that they were persecuted by Domitian.

 

[TMSO]

A little more internal evidence from Revelation...

Revelation written in early AD 60 , and no later

On another post, some of the external evidence for a later date included the Laodicean earthquake of AD 60. The line of thinking is that a number of years would have had to pass after the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake for that church to develop into a self-satisfied, complacent condition after the city had been rebuilt. They figure that an AD 95 composition date for Revelation would allow enough time for a slow, eventual drift into a "lukewarm" status for the church after the city's rebuilding had been completed.

My question is, why must it be AFTER the AD 60 earthquake for that complacent condition to be a problem for the Laodicean church? Why couldn't John's rebuke for that Laodicean church's complacency be given BEFORE the AD 60 earthquake took place, decimating the city?

Because if the earthquake could be seen as a punishment, you don't condemn people after they are punished. The reason they talk about 95 AD is that archaeologists and historians have said that it was a 30 year rebuild after the earthquake. So, the point would be that the church became full of itself over that 30 years. They were established. They had no need. They didn't go outside to get material to rebuild. The city and all is rebuilt, and their heart is proud.

The reason why I believe that this letter to the Laodicean church was written shortly BEFORE the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake is the time-relevant language that God used in Revelation 2:15-17. "I have known thy works, that neither cold art thou nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth; because thou sayest I am rich, and have grown rich, and have need of nothing..." (YLT). A number of other translations also catch this sense of an imminent judgment for the Laodicean church. That judgment would soon arrive for them after John had written Revelation's letter to them.

The Earthquake was around AD 60. This means that Revelation was not written in the early 60s but the late 50s. Those who believe it was written in the 60s give a date of 68-69 AD for Revelation being written. This would put it years after the earthquake at Laodicea. This would make it seem that God is rebuking the church at Laodicea for becoming full of itself during the 30 year rebuild, where no outside help was requested. One point made is that if you look at the churches in Acts, they don't look at all like the churches John is writing to in Revelation. For a church doing what Ephesus was doing, for their love to grow old, one year just doesn't seem long enough. 30 years, that love can be cold.

One question I have heard before about this judgment is "Why must it be an earthquake that was the imminent judgment for this Laodicean church?" We have grounds for believing this judgment of Laodicea to be an earthquake because Christ promised His disciples that for the "beginning of sorrows", even before the Great Tribulation period began, that there would be "earthquakes in divers places" (Matthew 24:7-8).

That is more conjecture than should be allowed. First of all Laodicea isn't under water, so it doesn't fit "divers places". Also, it speaks of many earthquakes in places where they would not normally occur. (What is actually meant by divers places.) Also, why would John ask them to repent to avoid God's judgement, several years AFTER said judgement? That makes no sense. You warn before the judgement.

As an aside, Seneca the Younger composed a volume of work, including a section called "Concerning Earthquakes" written after AD 63, related to the increasing level of seismic activity in the Roman world at the time. Seneca was only a recording observer of what Christ had already predicted would happen in that generation.

This is conjecture. Naturales Quaestiones is not a book observing things, but an explanation. (Hence the title.) In fact, he speaks of a huge earthquake and all the damage it did. He mentioned one of the areas hit hard, and said that they were not at all strangers to earthquakes. They happened all the time in that area, but this was the first earthquake to damage the city. He was writing to explain what he believed caused earthquakes. (So an answer to this nature question). (I read part of what he wrote.))

 

[Mr GLee]

certainly does matter when it was written. All of John's own time-relevant terms combined tell us when the book was written, and to whom those dire prophecies were directed. Please be patient with me. I am not done yet with listing all of the internal evidence for an early date by any means. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

It matters if you are trying to develop a timeline. Are you a dispensationalist they have a need ?

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: Salivation by the faith of Christ's labor of love is anytime we hear his voice and do not harden our hearts .

No literal thousand years in that parable (Revelation 20) It follows the use of the first three parables it does not become literal in the signified Book that uses all the metaphor used throughout.

The word as denotes a parable in in view

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

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.

 

[TMSO]

It matters if you are trying to develop a timeline. Are you a dispensationalist they have a need ?

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: Salivation by the faith of Christ's labor of love is anytime we hear his voice and do not harden our hearts .

No literal thousand years in that parable (Revelation 20) It follows the use of the first three parables it does not become literal in the signified Book that uses all the metaphor used throughout.

The word as denotes a parable in in view

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

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.

In 2 Peter, it cancels out and you are left with a thousand years as a thousand years, and a day as a day. It speaks to how God sees it. How many times did God through Paul clarify that He is speaking in human terms? The Bible is written in human terms, and where it is not, various beliefs force human terms onto what God said.

 

[3 Resurrections]

John said that everything he was writing was prophecy, and had not yet occurred. "3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

Not all prophecy is related to future events. And in Revelation 1:19, John was told to "write the things which thou HAST SEEN" (past events from John's perspective), "and the things that ARE" (things presently occurring in John's days), "and the things which are ABOUT TO BE hereafter" (things soon to occur in John's days).

There were multiple persecutions at the beginning of the church age.

Of course, that was Christ's promise to all believers of all time. "In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." It's a universal reality for all those living in the world but who are not of the world. But we are speaking of the particular persecution episode that John was then presently enduring along with the saints. You would like to claim it was under Domitian, but the rest of the scripture context in Revelation narrows that period of persecution John was experiencing down to an earlier period than Domitian's time.

That is assumption and conjecture. Antipas may have died in 92AD under Domitian

Of course, dating the death of Antipas is going to be an assumption by all, including you, since we do not have a record of it in history anywhere. That is why I wrote "probably" and not "certainly" about the timing of Antipas's death. The only fact we can be certain of is that it was in the days prior to John writing Revelation.

You talk a lot about Paul, with no established connections to when John wrote Revelation.

I do, because they were co-laborers together in the ministry for some time.

That would include... Smyrna, another church in Asia. Except that Smyrna is one of two churches that did not receive any negative marks. Philadelphia was the other.

Yes, that defection from faithfulness (an "apostasia") did eventually include Smyrna and Philadelphia. These once-faithful assemblies also experienced a lapse in that faithfulness, according to Paul's testimony to Timothy before Paul's martyrdom around AD 67. That kingdom of Asia where Satan had his throne in Pergamos and concentrated his deceptive efforts in that region became "darkened", just as Paul witnessed and told Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:15. This tells us that the book of 2 Timothy (written around AD 67) was written AFTER Revelation which was penned at a time when there were still two assemblies which were remaining faithful.

So far, all this evidence is conjecture. It all hinges on John and Antipas being persecuted by Nero, while tradition has held that they were persecuted by Domitian.

You haven't read far enough yet in the internal evidence for an early date if you think it all hinges on John and Antipas being persecuted by Nero. And tradition has often been discovered to be mistaken, so it is best not to use that for solid proof of anything. I mention it sometimes, but my beliefs are not founded on it.