Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Also good news today from my angiogram. Despite the CT scan saying I had "moderately extensive coronary calcification" the angiogram found no blockages at all. All they did was double my Lipitor from 40 mg to 80 mg a day.

Thanks to all who prayed for me. God is good, everyday! I was even at peace with passing away today if that was my destiny. But seems the Lord has more work for me here first.
The thing with passing onto the next life, is that it's only hard for those who stay behind. Kind of like winning a trip to Disneyland and telling your wife she can't come cause you only have one ticket.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1) I remember when my late wife (God rest her beautiful soul) was pregnant.
Sorry for your loss.

We had absolutely NO IDEA what day or Hour our child would be born on. Not even a clue. It was an impossibility for us to KNOW the day or Hour our Child would be born.

Also, we knew FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that our child would be Born sometime before October, (He ended up being born on Sept 7th).

Apparently was it possible for us to KNOW the general time for an absolute certainty, but be completely in the dark as to the day or hour.
I know, Crazy huh?
I believe this is a weak response. I don't buy this. Not only did Jesus say that no one but the Father knew the day or hour, but He also never said that He knew the approximate day or hour of His return.

2) While on earth, Jesus Did not know the day or Hour. True.
In Heaven, at the right hand of the Father (who we agree did Know), Jesus was then Given The Revelation By the Father, to Give to John, to Tell his servants "thing which must shortly take place, for the time was Near"
It's funny to me how preterists (full and partial) focus so much on Revelation 1:1-3 but seem to not be aware of the existence of Revelation 1:19. Yes, some of the things John wrote were things that would soon take place. Especially some of what he wrote to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3. But, that is not all he was told to write.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

John was told to write about things which had already happened (for example, he wrote about some past events related to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 and he also referenced Christ's birth and ascension in Revelation 11). He also was told to write about things which were happening at the time, and he did write about things happening at the time or that would happen soon in relation to the churches in Asia. And he was also told to write about things that would occur from that point on. From that point on until when? 70 AD? No! Until the end of time when Christ returns, the judgment occurs and the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.
 
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
I respectfully disagree.
You've got a gracious way with you bro. Very needed on Internet forums. :angel:

Revelation is not symbolic as Preterists think.
Maybe not, but Im Amil. See next point.

Many if not most scholars and professors of Theology have long concluded that Revelation is yet in the future
Sure, and I too would say that quite a lot of Revelation is future. Never-the-less, it is a symbolic book. In saying so, we interpret the symbol and find the literal application of that symbol. The Olivet discourse on the other hand, does not use symbols. Jesus just comes straight out with the facts. For example, "Heaven and earth will pass away." (Matt 24:35)

Futurists have to make a thousand times less assumptions about Revelation than Preterists.
A thousand times? Now there is a great example of figurative. ;) Nice one!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
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.
The book of Revelation undeniably contains a great deal of symbolism. Why do you equate symbolism with being meaningless? The truths that the symbolism symbolizes is far from meaningless.

Also, a late date for the book of Revelation is strong evidence against preterism, but that doesn't mean it's strong evidence for futurism. I'm not sure why you seem to think that preterism and futurism are the only viable options. I think you should take more time to look into idealism and historicism as well. My view is kind of a combination of those, but I lean more towards idealism. It makes me cringe whenever I see people act as if futurism and preterism are the only possibilities to choose from.
 
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
And the Creed also states there is "ONE Holy CATHOLIC and apostolic Church".

Where do you think they got that from?
Guess You'd Better convert and join the Church of Scripture.

This is the "Holy, Apostolic Internet forum." :holy:
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If He would not have known the Generation of people on whom it would befall (which is assumed by you but is not taught in the text) He could NOT have Promised that it would befall those first century people the way He plainly did. There is no way around this.

You have the Glorified Christ, from heaven, Promising His thief's coming would befall actual air breathing, blood pumping human beings alive in the first century, when he had no knowledge or authority to back up that promise. Such is absurd.
What you're saying is only plain to you. The gathering of the elect by the angels clearly did not occur in 70 AD. So, your understanding of "this generation" is clearly false.

What's the difference? Where is that Difference taught in the text?
Where is it taught in the text that Christ "comes as a thief" multiple times to punish or reward specific people groups at different points in History?

The Bible does not teach that Christ comes as a thief multiple times, you apparently need it to, but it doesn't.
Simply put, the thief's coming is the "day of the Lord", and the day of the lord in the NT is the parousia of Christ. (2 Peter 3:10, cf. Revelation 16:15, 3:3, Matthew 24:43, Luke 12:39)

And in Revelation 3:3, Christ directly applies His coming as a thief to the first century Church at Sardis, thus CEMENTING the Day of the Lord coming of Christ as a thief, to the 1st century.

Jesus Christ must be right, and therefore futurism must be wrong, concerning the timing of the coming of Christ/Day of the Lord as a Thief.
The difference is that these other passages you're referring to, such as 2 Peter 3:10, have clearly not yet occurred. The context of Revelation 3:3 is clearly different than a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12. I truly have no idea why you can't recognize that.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe including a prophecy still thousands of years away in a book that is 99% about the near future negates the preterist position in any way. If 99% of what John saw was indeed to take place within 20 years of the vision, then it's still correct for Jesus to say "I will show you what must soon take place", notwithstanding that he may also show a little bit of what is still far off.
What now? That doesn't make any sense. If you allow for the possibility that it's not talking about everything written in the book soon taking place, then what is the basis for concluding that 99% of it would soon take place? None. If it's not talking about all of it soon taking place, then the only thing you can conclude is that it's talking about some of it soon taking place without knowing how much would soon take place and how much would not.
 
Upvote 0

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Of course! I believe Revelation is not a chronological unfolding of end-time events, but is a series of recapitulations or retelling of events that culminate in the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Revelation 6-22 consists of a number of figurative prophetic parallels (seven in total) revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. They relate, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Parallels are simply different camera views of the same corresponding intra-Advent period which look at different aspects of the great battle between darkness and light.

John was simply shown a number of parallel visions one after the other, all culminating in the climactic coming of Christ. Each parallel concentrate on the same time period and the symbolic ongoing events that occur throughout, viewing them from slightly different camera angles. Sometimes God is speaking primarily of the elect, sometimes He is majoring on the wicked. Sometimes He is describing the righteous in heaven, sometimes the righteous on earth. Sometimes it is the humans that reside within the kingdom of darkness, sometimes it is the invisible demonic host that reside there. Although coming from divergent angles, the parallels are carefully interwoven like a linen cloth. Often to establish the meaning and format of the book, we have to meticulously and patiently fit the jig-saw pieces together in order to see the unfolding picture. That is not to say we have a full revelation of this peculiar book, but we can have an insight into this inspired book.

The parallels reveal the increasing degrees of intensity of the intra-Advent conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness, culminating in a great final gathering for battle and the climactic return of Christ to obliterate all rebellion.

I will focus in on the end of each cycle that I have proposed as time and space doesn’t allow me to perform a complete exposition of Revelation.
Hm... I think you misunderstood what I was asking for, as your entire post seems to be focused on proving the format in which Revelation was written.

I agree that Revelation is not a simple chronological book, and the style of writing used is what I would call progressive parallelism, that is essentially repeating the same story several times in progressively more or less detail in order to paint a clearer picture. As you put it, seeing the same scene from different camera angles.

However I had asked you if you could give us an example of internal evidence that "overwhelmingly points to a late dating of Revelation" and I don't see how your explanation of the style of writing used in Revelation does that.

Full disclosure, I stopped reading about a quarter of the way through your post because it's very long and it became clear what you were doing, which was not really providing an answer to my question, but if there is a golden nugget in that wall of words somewhere that actually proves (or suggests) a late dating, please highlight it for me.
 
Upvote 0

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
What now? That doesn't make any sense. If you allow for the possibility that it's not talking about everything written in the book soon taking place, then what is the basis for concluding that 99% of it would soon take place? None. If it's not talking about all of it soon taking place, then the only thing you can conclude is that it's talking about some of it soon taking place without knowing how much would soon take place and how much would not.
Nonsense. If I said to you, "Listen Jew. I'm about to tell you what I have to do this week" and I said "I have to go to Costo, return those boots and book my vacation. And by the way, next year I'm planning to go back to that Mexico resort I told you about", have I not told you what I have to do this week?
 
Upvote 0

Freedm

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
740
172
42
Austin TX
✟40,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
The gathering of the elect by the angels clearly did not occur in 70 AD.
It only "clearly did not occur", according to the way you understand it, but according to my understanding it clearly did occur.
 
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

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nonsense. If I said to you, "Listen Jew. I'm about to tell you what I have to do this week" and I said "I have to go to Costo, return those boots and book my vacation. And by the way, next year I'm planning to go back to that Mexico resort I told you about", have I not told you what I have to do this week?
Speaking of nonsense. So, does this mean what you're doing this week comprises 99% of what you're doing the rest of your life?
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The ruthless persecution of the Church by the Roman Empire under Domitian's reign. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70 was something completely different.

I wasn’t aware there was a world wide persecution by Domitian to try those on the earth....

10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.
Revelation 3:10
 
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

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
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.

Do you realize the preeminent position of the Church for 500 years has been historic?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,129
3,878
Southern US
✟391,377.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
You've got a gracious way with you bro. Very needed on Internet forums. :angel:


Maybe not, but Im Amil. See next point.


Sure, and I too would say that quite a lot of Revelation is future. Never-the-less, it is a symbolic book. In saying so, we interpret the symbol and find the literal application of that symbol. The Olivet discourse on the other hand, does not use symbols. Jesus just comes straight out with the facts. For example, "Heaven and earth will pass away." (Matt 24:35)

A thousand times? Now there is a great example of figurative. ;) Nice one!

Great point about the Lord. I'll get to the Olivet Discourse eventually though I've read some research on it already but I figure we'll finish up with Revelation then study it through and through using all the 3 Gospels in parallel that offer it.

I enjoy our discussions as well due to your consideration and gentleness with your points of view. You win more points that way that all the fist-pounding and table slapping which never impresses me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freedm
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.
So only literal sheep and goats are separated and not human souls? Saying futurist cannot tell the difference is a weak argument.

If you can only see Revelation as symbolic, you would never understand the literal implications. Are you sure you want to contrast Scripture solely on the basis of being literal or symbolic?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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).
Th Cross was the event where God came in judgment and switched who was in control of the vineyard literally. Why are you putting your faith and trust in the writings of Josephus?
 
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

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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:
Been here for 54 years.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0