Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

Lost4words said:

Facts and truths that futurists turn a blind eye to my friend.

Click to expand...

Are you a full Preterist in regards to Revelation 20:10-15? Or are you a futurist in regards to it? If the former, full Preterism is not allowed in this section. If the latter, why are you dissing futurism when you are one yourself in this particular case?

sovereigngrace said:

My position is not governed by an early or a late writing. I just don't buy the Preterist evidence. I find it forced.

Click to expand...

Isn't the date of the writing the single most important piece in determining whether or not it applied to 70 AD or our future?

sovereigngrace said:

This is typical Preterism eisegesis. It manipulates Scripture to support a questionable doctrine.

Click to expand...

Please don't accuse me of manipulating scripture. We're all just trying to figure it out here. If you disagree with me and have a different understanding, then please explain why.

Christian Gedge said:

So I take it that you mean the temple together with the city will be trampled by the Gentiles for 42 literal months. Can you answer one more question for me at this point please? Who do you say are the witnesses who prophesy for 1260 days (66 ad to 70 ad) during this same forty-two month period? Thanks.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the witnesses but I think it makes good sense for the witnesses to be "the law and the prophets". It's also possible that they were two literal men because history tells us that two men in particular were trying to stop the war with the Romans. These were Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamaliel.

Timtofly said:

Pilate and the rest of those Romans all died before 70AD. That generation born before or after Jesus was not expected to live longer than 60 or 65 years.

Click to expand...

Even if they died at age 60 it's still entirely possible that they witnessed the events of 70 AD. Besides, aren't we told that John himself lived well into his 90's? So I'm not sure if you think you just made a strong point against my position, but I really don't think you did.

Freedm said:

Isn't the date of the writing the single most important piece in determining whether or not it applied to 70 AD or our future?

Click to expand...

To your position, yes. Not to mine, or any of the other views.

Timtofly said:

The fact the temple in Revelation is never destroyed, should indicate it was not the temple destroyed in 70AD.

Click to expand...

But it is mentioned in Revelation.

Revelation 21:1
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

I realize you don't believe "heaven and earth" are representative of the temple, but because I do your argument is invalid. The way I see it, it makes perfect sense. You not seeing it the same way, does not change anything for me.

Timtofly said:

John then describes 2 witnesses who have the same length of time to witness as the 42 months given to Satan and the FP. The Gentiles trampling the temple coincides with the defeat of the saints that drives them from Jerusalem, to the sea of glass and Mt. Zion. Chapter 11 is still giving us facts of what transpires during the days of the sound of the 7th Trumpet. Up to the point later in chapter 11, the 7th Trumpet actually starts to sound. The 7th Trumpet's sound covers the next chapters till the end of 19 and the battle of Armageddon.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is here.

sovereigngrace said:

To your position, yes. Not to mine, or any of the other views.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that even if it was written prior to 70 AD, you can still claim it has nothing to do with 70 AD?

Freedm said:

Isn't the date of the writing the single most important piece in determining whether or not it applied to 70 AD or our future?

Click to expand...

All it means is that a 70 AD interpretation is a possibility. It does not conclusively prove 70 AD is meant. It's not like something can't be written prior to a certain event, yet have nothing to do with that event. As to me, I couldn't care less when it was written. If it was written before 70 AD or after 70 AD, it's not going to change a single thing in my case. I will still continue interpreting these things the same way I am currently interpreting them, regardless. Only Preterists need it to be written prior to 70 AD, since they know their theory is impossible if written after 70 AD. As for someone like me, if it was written prior to 70 AD, that still doesn't make my interpretation impossible. And the same if written after 70 AD. Preterists can't claim the same, since their interpretation solely relies on when it it was allegedly written.

Freedm said:

So are you saying that even if it was written prior to 70 AD, you can still claim it has nothing to do with 70 AD?

Click to expand...

Yes. Correct. As you dive into the book of Revelation it is important to recognize that it is not chronological. It is a series of recaps. It presents different camera views of the same game (mainly, the period between Christ's First Advent and His Second Advent). Sometimes when one is watching a sports game, the camera is close in on the action, sometimes it presents a broad panoramic view of the game. Sometimes it is focused on the coaches, sometimes it is focused on the players, other times, it is focused on the fans. The book Revelation is a bit like that. Sinclair Ferguson describes the apocalypse as: “Recapitulatory and progressive parallelism.”

What we are looking at is a spiritual revelation of our Savior revealed to us in symbolic form. We get a general overview of the story. We then have an expansion of particular aspects of that story. Scripture often does that.

Revelation 1-22 consists of a number of figurative prophetic parallels (most believe 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. John basically goes behind the scenes into the spiritual realm and articulates in symbolic form the enormity of the great conflict between light and darkness. In the book of Revelation, we get a perceptive insight into the invisible realm.

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. Basically, it is telling the same story from different angles.

The ESV Study Bible states: “Revelation unveils the unseen spiritual war in which the church is engaged: the cosmic conflict between God and his Christ on the one hand, and Satan and his evil allies (both demonic and human) on the other. In this conflict, Jesus the Lamb has already won the decisive victory through his sacrificial death, but his church continues to be assaulted by the dragon, in its death-throes, through persecution, false teaching, and the allure of material affluence and cultural approval. By revealing the spiritual realities lying behind the church’s trials and temptations during the time between Christ’s first and second comings, and by dramatically affirming the certainty of Christ’s triumph in the new heaven and earth, the visions granted to John both warn the church and fortify it to endure suffering and to stay pure from the defiling enticements of the present world order.”

Revelation is designed to enlighten God’s people, stir their hearts and increase their faith. 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.

Those who have eyes to see will get the general thrust of the book! That does not mean we will grasp every minute detail. But we should get the overall message of the apocalypse.

Cycle 1

Seven Churches (Ch 2-3)

Cycle 2

Seven Seals (Ch 6-8:1)

Cycle 3

Seven Trumpets (Ch 8-11)

Cycle 4

The Church and its onslaught from the devil and the beast’s and ultimate victory in heaven.


Cycle 5

Seven Vials (Ch 15-16)

Cycle 6

Babylon (Ch 17-19)

Cycle 7

Revelation was not intended to introduce a large deposit of new revelation that was previously unknown to the other sacred writers. Many (wrongly) formulate new elaborate innovative Bible doctrines out of the apocalyptic symbols that were simply designed to express general spiritual truths, in keeping with the rest of Scripture. End-time enthusiasts often arbitrarily use parables, visions, dreams, and symbols to conveniently design their own theology, theories and prophetic schemes. This distorts what was intended to be an unveiling of truth and confuses those who they speak to.

Freedm said:

But it is mentioned in Revelation.

Revelation 21:1
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

I realize you don't believe "heaven and earth" are representative of the temple, but because I do your argument is invalid. The way I see it, it makes perfect sense. You not seeing it the same way, does not change anything for me.


I'm not sure what your point is here.

Click to expand...

This is spiritualization gone crazy! You could literally make the Bible say anything you wish. This is typical of Preterism. I presented strong biblical evidence previously to you that shows that when “heaven” and “earth” are used together throughout the Word they mean exactly that. There are no exceptions. I showed you the proof. You have not addressed the evidence. I have seen no rebuttal apart from you sidestepping the topic and you complaining about me refuting Preterism. The burden of proof is in your court to respond.

You have so far presented nothing to show how you have the authority, warrant or direction to change the “heaven” and “earth” into a physical temple in Jerusalem in AD70, apart from your own personal opinion. Frankly, that doesn’t cut it. With this type of ad-hoc hermeneutics, what would stop anyone imposing their own private speculation on any literal reality in Scripture? That is like me insisting on “heaven” and “earth” representing Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. It is insane!

Freedm said:

Again, I urge you to consider the words of the book. In it John describes the temple as though it is still standing, and is told that it will be trampled underfoot by the gentiles for 42 months (Revelation 11:2). This is exactly the same thing that Jesus predicted would happen in Luke 21:24 saying "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". Now if the temple had already been destroyed by the time John received his vision, not only would he not have echoed the words of Jesus, but he also would've mentioned the most important fact that the temple was recently destroyed.

Click to expand...

That is not talking about the physical temple. For one thing, John would not have called that temple "the temple of God". Also, you didn't read far enough in Revelation 11. The location of the temple of God mentioned in Revelation 11:1-2 is revealed here:

Revelation 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Freedm said:

No offense, but I find the reasoning of "we can't possibly understand because the Bible is written from God's perspective" to be both foolish and cheap. If the bible were written in such a way that we couldn't understand it would be entirely pointless, and for that same reason this amounts to nothing more than a cop out and the futurists standard response when they're presented with something they can't explain.

Obviously the words were given to John, who is not God, but a man, and it was written for him to present to his people who were also men and not God, so how could it possibly make any sense at all to say that the references to time in his vision were meant to be understood from "God's perspective" which we can not possibly do? You'd be essentially saying that the vision was not meant for mankind and that is foolishness.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me how you interpret the following passage:

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily (Greek: tachos). Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

The same Greek word translated as "speedily" here is translated as "soon" or "shortly" in Revelation 1:1. So, I'm curious if you interpret the word the same way in this passage as you do in Revelation 1. Do you think this passage is saying that God would avenge His elect within a short amount of time after Luke 18:7-8 was written?

Lost4words said:

Revelation 1

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

I believe what Jesus said at the beginning of Revelation. He was talking about the generation of the Apostles, not thousands of years in the future.

Click to expand...

So, you apparently believe everything written in the book of Revelation is fulfilled then? Are you a full preterist?

I am a Partial Preterist, and to me - Partial Preterism does not fall apart if Revelation was written after 70 AD. I do feel it was written around 67 AD, but a late date for the writing of the book does not necessarily "destroy Partial Preterism" in any way.

Freedm said:

No offense, but I find the reasoning of "we can't possibly understand because the Bible is written from God's perspective" to be both foolish and cheap. If the bible were written in such a way that we couldn't understand it would be entirely pointless, and for that same reason this amounts to nothing more than a cop out and the futurists standard response when they're presented with something they can't explain.

Obviously the words were given to John, who is not God, but a man, and it was written for him to present to his people who were also men and not God, so how could it possibly make any sense at all to say that the references to time in his vision were meant to be understood from "God's perspective" which we can not possibly do? You'd be essentially saying that the vision was not meant for mankind and that is foolishness.

Click to expand...

When did I say "we can't possibly understand because the Bible is written from God's perspective"? You are purporting to quote me.

What is "foolish and cheap"?

Actually, I consider it possible that EVERY NT BOOK was written before 70 AD.

It boggles my mind that no book would mention a Temple destruction if it had already happenned!

Oh, but the mighty liberal Bible Scholars tell us how late the books are written, that Paul did not really write the Pastoral epistles, and so forth. Their HIGH MIGHTINESSES just might be wrong, ya know?

People should research Carston Thiede and his book THE JESUS PAPYRI - Thiede and his colleague make a good case for rolling the authorship of NT books way back from the late dates of Dominic Crossan and those who hold the field. I have seen basketball games more spiritual than Crossan.

I think Thiede passed away in 2004.

sovereigngrace said:

This is spiritualization gone crazy! You could literally make the Bible say anything you wish. This is typical of Preterism. I presented strong biblical evidence previously to you that shows that when “heaven” and “earth” are used together throughout the Word they mean exactly that. There are no exceptions. I showed you the proof. You have not addressed the evidence. I have seen no rebuttal apart from you sidestepping the topic and you complaining about me refuting Preterism. The burden of proof is in your court to respond.

You have so far presented nothing to show how you have the authority, warrant or direction to change the “heaven” and “earth” into a physical temple in Jerusalem in AD70, apart from your own personal opinion. Frankly, that doesn’t cut it. With this type of ad-hoc hermeneutics, what would stop anyone imposing their own private speculation on any literal reality in Scripture? That is like me insisting on “heaven” and “earth” representing Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. It is insane!

Click to expand...

Settle down. I did not come up with this idea of heaven and earth being represented by the temple. This is well known and documented by scholars throughout history and I really don't understand why you'd have such a hard time with temple symbolism if you accept that Jesus is the new temple. Is that not also symbolic? Is that insane to you?