Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

Gundy22

Arminian Commando
Apr 10, 2021
176
103
71
Waco
✟25,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Rev 17:7

And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

Rev 17:8

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Rev 17:9

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Rev 17:10

And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Rev 17:11

And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
 
Upvote 0

Gundy22

Arminian Commando
Apr 10, 2021
176
103
71
Waco
✟25,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Primo Bible Verses

William Barclay on the Nero/Domitian stuff...

"It might well be that John saw in Domitian the reincarnation of Nero. Others did precisely the same. Juvenal spoke of Rome being "enslaved to a bald-headed Nero" (Domitian was bald) and was exiled and finally murdered for his temerity. Tertullian called Domitian "a man of Nero's type of cruelty," and "a sub-Nero," a verdict which Eusebius repeated."

The longer I look at things - exactly WHEN Revelation was written matters LESS AND LESS THAN WHO AND WHAT IS BEING WRITTEN ABOUT.
 
Upvote 0

Gundy22

Arminian Commando
Apr 10, 2021
176
103
71
Waco
✟25,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
More from Barclay from that site I posted earlier:

"(iii) The beast was, and is not, and is about to come ( Revelation 17:8 ). This goes back to Revelation 13:3 ; Revelation 13:12 ; Revelation 13:14 and is a clear reference to the Nero redivivus legend, which is never far from the mind of John. We have already seen that the ideas of Nero resurrected and of Antichrist had become inseparably connected. Therefore, in this passage the beast stands for Antichrist."
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Preterism is all over the place. The location of the great trib has suddenly moved from the coming of Titus to Jerusalem in AD70 to Asia Minor at some unknown time

Suddenly?
My position in this has been consistent here on CF for 19 years.

and the coming of Jesus as a thief is now 2000 years ago to Asia Minor.

Is now?
Did Jesus Lie?
He plainly promised his thief’s coming would befall the first century people at Sardis.
Again, Did He Lie?
Was he merely mistaken? Was he issuing an empty threat to them? Why don’t you explain Revelation 3:3 to us Since you don’t believe it means what it plainly says.

Feel free to wing it.
 
Upvote 0

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,129
3,878
Southern US
✟391,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Looks to me that the weight of evidence is solidly on AD95 during the reign of Domitian for the timing of John's exile on Patmos which means John could not possibly be referring to the fall of Jerusalem in the book of Revelation. Further the inability to answer the 4 questions I had for Preterists is pretty convincing that the view of Preterism is hard to justify in light of the weight of Scripture from Daniel to the Olivet Discourse to the rapture described in 1 Thessalonians 4 to the entire book of Revelation. And as we continue into Steve Gregg's book on the 4 views of Revelation it is getting harder and harder to really see any merit to any view other than Futurism when honestly assessing the Scripture at face value, at least based on what I see through my engineering objective data centered and Holy Spirit led eyes. When taken as a whole, Scripture seems best interpreted by the lens of Futurism. All other interpretations require so much symbolism that Revelation winds up a meaningless book of prophecy when taken as anything else, as does the words of the Lord in the Olivet Discourse.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Suddenly?
My position in this has been consistent here on CF for 19 years.



Is now?
Did Jesus Lie?
He plainly promised his thief’s coming would befall the first century people at Sardis.
Again, Did He Lie?
Was he merely mistaken? Was he issuing an empty threat to them? Why don’t you explain Revelation 3:3 to us Since you don’t believe it means what it plainly says.

Feel free to wing it.

Your fixation with AD70, Titus and Jerusalem has suddenly changed to a global event in order to justify these additional holes in your position and support your "extreme Preterism."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Looks to me that the weight of evidence is solidly on AD95 during the reign of Domitian for the timing of John's exile on Patmos which means John could not possibly be referring to the fall of Jerusalem in the book of Revelation. Further the inability to answer the 4 questions I had for Preterists is pretty convincing that the view of Preterism is hard to justify in light of the weight of Scripture from Daniel to the Olivet Discourse to the rapture described in 1 Thessalonians 4 to the entire book of Revelation. And as we continue into Steve Gregg's book on the 4 views of Revelation it is getting harder and harder to really see any merit to any view other than Futurism when honestly assessing the Scripture at face value, at least based on what I see through my engineering objective data centered and Holy Spirit led eyes. When taken as a whole, Scripture seems best interpreted by the lens of Futurism. All other interpretations require so much symbolism that Revelation winds up a meaningless book of prophecy when taken as anything else, as does the words of the Lord in the Olivet Discourse.

What type of Futurism?
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As in that all but Revelation 1-3 are still yet to happen
So you’re saying Jesus already came as a thief to those at Sardis? (Revelation 3:3)
When did He do that?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your fixation with AD70, Titus and Jerusalem has suddenly changed to a global event in order to justify these additional holes in your position and support your "extreme Preterism."

Project much?
Our readers are smart enough to see you kicking sand in the air and flailing your hands all around to attempt to divert attention away from your inability to exegete Revelation 3:3 for us.
 
Upvote 0

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,129
3,878
Southern US
✟391,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
So you’re saying Jesus already came as a thief to those at Sardis? (Revelation 3:3)
When did He do that?
We have to assume either they repented so He didn't have to return or he did so in a manner like He was here in the Old Testament for only a brief moment.
 
Upvote 0

Christian Gedge

Well-Known Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,214
1,361
Waikato
Visit site
✟227,010.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All other interpretations require so much symbolism that Revelation winds up a meaningless book of prophecy when taken as anything else, as does the words of the Lord in the Olivet Discourse.
Lookee here Jeff. The Olivet discourse is literal; the Revelation is symbolic! A problem that futurists have with Revelation, is that they have beasts crawling out of the sea, swords hanging out of Jesus mouth, and chains tying up spirits!

On the other hand, Preterists have the Olivet discourse making figurative explanations for stars falling out of the sky, angels gathering the elect, and the destruction of the world. Our job is to figure out what is figurative and what is literal. When we do that properly, everything falls into place …

… and no, the answer is not dispensational futurism.
 
Upvote 0

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,129
3,878
Southern US
✟391,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I respectfully disagree. Revelation is not symbolic as Preterists think. Many if not most scholars and professors of Theology have long concluded that Revelation is yet in the future, and the number of scholars that still hold to a Preterist view is a tiny handful by comparison. Same with Christian laypeople who are not scholars in the church. Occam's razor says the conclusion with the least number of assumptions is generally the correct view, and Futurists have to make a thousand times less assumptions about Revelation than Preterists.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
AD 70 is just not consistent with Scripture and that is really that simple.
Rather, it’s quite simple to understand and accept the Biblical fact that AD70 was a day of the Lord event, and was, unquestionably, the one that Jesus and the apostles spoke of as "soon coming, at hand, about to take place, before that generation had passed".

As stated in Matthew 21:40-45, the Lord of the Vineyard came to the apostate leaders of first-century Israel and was The Stone that crushed them to powder, removing the Kingdom of God from them and giving it to a new Nation. Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth, came in the glory of the Father and did so in the lifetimes of the apostles, exactly as he promised (Matt 16:27-28; 24:33-34).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I respectfully disagree. Revelation is not symbolic as Preterists think.
A fulfillment of Revelation in our future REQUIRES those who hold that view apply Massive amounts of symbolism.
There is no way “must shortly take place for the time is near” Can be stretched into two millennia without employing naked, unabashed, flag waving symbolism.

Pot, meet Kettle.
Many if not most scholars and professors of Theology have long concluded that Revelation is yet in the future, and the number of scholars that still hold to a Preterist view is a tiny handful by comparison.
The truth of Christianity was once held by only 12 people, So I’m not sure your point that “popularity of belief equals correctness of doctrine” holds any water as a sober, reasoned argument.

Same with Christian laypeople who are not scholars in the church.

Awesome! Most Christian Laypeople are Catholics. By a country mile. No other denomination even comes close.
You must therefore assert Catholicism is the correct and true path, based on your “Most Popular = True” assertion.
Maybe when “your belief” is in the minority, it’s different somehow?
Are you the exception to your own rule?
That would be super convenient if everyone had to follow your rule EXCEPT you!
Occam's razor says the conclusion with the least number of assumptions is generally the correct view, and Futurists have to make a thousand times less assumptions about Revelation than Preterists.

Rather, Mr Kettle, Futurists have to make a thousand times more assumptions, And unlike preterists, (which I’ll remind you preterism is the eschatological position held by the vast majority of Christians on earth) futurists must completely throw out truckloads of biblical president in order to prop up their man made views.

it’s not even close.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Project much?
Our readers are smart enough to see you kicking sand in the air and flailing your hands all around to attempt to divert attention away from your inability to exegete Revelation 3:3 for us.

No difficulty whatsoever. That has been the expectation for the NT Church throughout the ages.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As in that all but Revelation 1-3 are still yet to happen

Can you explain what you mean? Could you lay out a brief outline of your understanding of Revelation? Futurism is obviously a broad church with many views. What type of Futurism do you advocate? For example: where is the coming of Christ in Revelation? Where is the tribulation? How long is it? When does the millennium play into this? Is Revelation chronological in your opinion? Obviously, could you attach your main scriptural support for your position? Please highlight what the most compelling points of your brand of Futurism are that negate the other views.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We have to assume either they repented so He didn't have to return or he did so in a manner like He was here in the Old Testament for only a brief moment.
You only have to assume that to prop up a futurist view...There is no other reason to make that assumption. You are blatantly making the text fit your bias, (and I guess it’s good you’re being honest about that, so our readers can see), but the correct way is to allow the text to shape your bias, not the other way around as you were doing.

There was only one coming of Christ is a thief taught in Scripture, and it takes place, on time, at a time that was fixed in time by God, regardless of whether people repent or not.

That is what scripture teaches about the coming of Christ as a thief.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Know difficulty whatsoever. That has been the to the NT Church throughout the ages.
How did it apply to the first century church at Sardis?
Your claim is that the coming of Christ as a thief did not take place for them in their day.
The text says it would.
C’mon man. Exegete.

How can you say a specific scriptural promise was for “all the church throughout the ages”, when your belief automatically must exclude all generations Christians prior to today or after, from any possible direct application of the text?

How about this:
Philippians 2:19
19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be encouraged when I know your state.

Was this likewise “for all the church throughout the ages”?
Are you waiting for Timothy's soon arrival to YOU?
Paul said He is trusting Jesus to Send Timothy TO YOU, SHORTLY, right?

Since we have determined that the scriptural use of “you” When the apostles address the people they are writing to, must be extrapolated to mean “all Christians of all ages”, and the apostolic use of “shortly” Must likewise be extrapolated to mean any length of time even multiple millennia as in “shortly to God”, then There’s absolutely no way we can conclude this scripture can only be directly applied to the first century Philippians, right?

We today, as all Christians of all ages, must be earnestly on the lookout for Timothy’s soon arrival to us, as Paul infallibly taught us to be.

Amen and Hallelujah!
Come Timothy! Come!
:doh:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0