Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

Freedm said:

In my first quote I paraphrased, but then when you denied my paraphrase, indicating that I had misunderstood, I responded with an exact quote here.

Let me just repost my exact post here:

This is what you said "It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal perspective, not man’s natural perspective. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God." in response to my point that the book tells us this is a vision of "what must soon take place".

You said the words do not demand an imminent fulfillment, apparently because the words are spoken "from God's eternal perspective, not man's natural perspective". Are you not saying that we should not understand the word "soon" the way we would normally understand it? Are you not saying that we should understand the word from God's perspective, instead of man's perspective? If so, that is foolish and cheap.​

Now don't tell me I'm mis-quoting you because that part in blue is an exact quote. My words after that are asking for confirmation that I'm understanding you correctly. Please feel free to clarify your words if I'm misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

You do not put a paraphrase in quotes. That is deceitful. I do not appreciate that. You were deliberately trying to mislead, obviously because you could not rebut my post.

Freedm said:

Is a gentile not someone who is not a Jew? And are not also "those who say they are Jews but are not", not Jews? Not sure how this is convoluted. Jesus literally said they are not Jews.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that we of faith are 'spiritual Jews'. We even have a poster here who calls himself 'Spiritual Jew.' But you are taking Jewish zealots of AD 70 and claiming they are the *Gentiles* who trample the city. No! It is the Gentile Romans that are being spoken of here. Furthermore, the Gentile Romans trampled the city again in AD 135 - a fact that Preterists avoid because it does not fit their 'generation' narrative. Furthermore, the Gentile Muslims trampled the city again in AD 637 - another fact that Preterists avoid because it does not fit their narrative. Then there were the Byzantines, Fatamids, Crusades, Ottomans, British - all of them Gentiles - all of them trampling Jerusalem.

I think that Preterists glue their eyes to the AD 70 event without looking at the broader picture. In doing so, they entirely miss the significance of Luke 21:24 and Revelation 11:2

Jeffwhosoever said:

Preterists HAVE to glue their eyes on AD 70 because if John was on Patmos during the reign of Domitian in AD 95, then John was seeing events not tied to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the first century, and thus Futurism is correct.

Click to expand...

Or more specifically, and thus ...

• Futurism is correct (or)
  
• Historicism is correct (or)
• Amillennialism is correct

I prefer Amil with a sprinkling of Historicism. How are you going with all the terminology Jeff?

I wish we'd all been ready.

Lost4words said:

Like i said, i believe in Partial Preterism

Click to expand...

What part of the book of Revelation do you believe is not yet fulfilled?

Also, if you believe that some of it is not yet fulfilled, then why do you interpret Revelation 1:1-3 to only refer to some (most) of the things John wrote in the book instead of all of it? If not everything in the book is about things that would soon take place after he wrote the book, then maybe you need to reconsider how you interpret Revelation 1:1-3.

Spiritual Jew said:

What part of the book of Revelation do you believe is not yet fulfilled?

Also, if you believe that some of it is not yet fulfilled, then why do you interpret Revelation 1:1-3 to only refer to some (most) of the things John wrote in the book instead of all of it? If not everything in the book is about things that would soon take place after he wrote the book, then maybe you need to reconsider how you interpret Revelation 1:1-3.

Click to expand...

Jesus came and conquered all.

People want Revelation to be about our times, our generation. People read it with modern glasses.

Anyway, i am leaving this thread now.

God bless you buddy..

Lost4words said:

Jesus came and conquered all.

People want Revelation to be about our times, our generation. People read it with modern glasses.

Anyway, i am leaving this thread now.

God bless you buddy..

Click to expand...

It is impossible to get Preterists to stay the course and actually address the numerous contradictions embodied within the view. That to me is telling! The doctrine simply does not add up and cannot abide basic scrutiny.

The term "preterists" is being used in this thread by those who are not - and FULL and PARTIAL are lumped together as if they are one and the same. The Eschatology Board itself does NOT DO THIS - saying "No full preterists - partial preterists welcome". Get with the board people, and stop lumping partials with fulls.

Because I am a Partial - I am also part Futurist.
Because I am not certain if the 1000 years is literal or symbolic - I am also part Amillennial.

The OP is about the date of Revelation's authorship - this is not a thread to bash Partial Preterists and lump them with Fulls.

Irenaeus is supposedly some big trump card for a late date, but the statement about when John was seen is ambiguous - also Irenaeus had a statement somewhere that Jesus was 50 years old.

I really don't think the date of authorship of Revelation is anywhere close to being settled - may never be.

More Proof Irenaeus Thought Jesus Lived to 50 Years Old

The waters are muddy concerning using Irenaeus as a deciding factor about date of authorship of Revelation.

Also, the reasoning that Ephesus needed a "long time to leave its first love" is silly -- they could have left their first love as easily by 67 AD as by 95 AD.

Irenaeus insisting that Jesus was more than 50 yrs old when he died..

There has alreday been a thread on this board about Irenaeus thinking Jesus was way older than we know Him to be.

Jeffwhosoever said:

Wonderkins what is your view of the dating of Revelation?

Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay Jeff. I wasn't getting notifications.

I'm fairly new to the amill/postmill positions. I spent the first 38 years of my life a premill. I'd say it's during the last 7 months or so that I became convinced. Figuring out how to separate the two has been a little challenging.

But I believe the majority of the events in revelation have already taken place. What I'm trying to nail down right now is which parts in revelation do the amill/postmill folks look forward to in the future.

That's where I'm at. I probably couldn't lay out an entire cohesive argument for these beliefs right now, but I am convinced by what I've studied.

Gundy22 said:

The term "preterists" is being used in this thread by those who are not - and FULL and PARTIAL are lumped together as if they are one and the same. The Eschatology Board itself does NOT DO THIS - saying "No full preterists - partial preterists welcome". Get with the board people, and stop lumping partials with fulls.

Because I am a Partial - I am also part Futurist.
Because I am not certain if the 1000 years is literal or symbolic - I am also part Amillennial.

The OP is about the date of Revelation's authorship - this is not a thread to bash Partial Preterists and lump them with Fulls.

Irenaeus is supposedly some big trump card for a late date, but the statement about when John was seen is ambiguous - also Irenaeus had a statement somewhere that Jesus was 50 years old.

I really don't think the date of authorship of Revelation is anywhere close to being settled - may never be.

Click to expand...

To some of us it doesn't matter when Revelation was written. It doesn't change a thing about the way some of us interpret some of these things, regardless whether it was written before 70 AD or after 70 AD. Only Preterists, whether full or partial, that think the first century was meant in most or all of Revelation need it to be meaning before 70 AD so that their interpretations can supposedly work.

Gundy22 said:

More Proof Irenaeus Thought Jesus Lived to 50 Years Old

The waters are muddy concerning using Irenaeus as a deciding factor about date of authorship of Revelation.

Also, the reasoning that Ephesus needed a "long time to leave its first love" is silly -- they could have left their first love as easily by 67 AD as by 95 AD.

Click to expand...

You are actually doing what you are criticizing others for - diverting the thread.

wonderkins said:

Sorry for the delay Jeff. I wasn't getting notifications.

I'm fairly new to the amill/postmill positions. I spent the first 38 years of my life a premill. I'd say it's during the last 7 months or so that I became convinced. Figuring out how to separate the two has been a little challenging.

But I believe the majority of the events in revelation have already taken place. What I'm trying to nail down right now is which parts in revelation do the amill/postmill folks look forward to in the future.

That's where I'm at. I probably couldn't lay out an entire cohesive argument for these beliefs right now, but I am convinced by what I've studied.

Click to expand...

My journey is similar. Have you studied the Amil Idealist position? It would probably be the main Amil position today, although Amil Partial Preterism may be the most popular Amil position on this board.

In the year 2000 I started writing a book to support Premil and changed to Amil after 6 months. The basis of my research was corroboration.

Gundy22 said:

Irenaeus insisting that Jesus was more than 50 yrs old when he died..

There has alreday been a thread on this board about Irenaeus thinking Jesus was way older than we know Him to be.

Click to expand...

Couldn't you have just added this to the post you just made a few minutes earlier instead of creating another new post? You do this kind of thing a lot and I'm not sure why. Also, I don't know who you are talking to here. Why don't you specify who you are talking to?

I was talking to anyone who might be reading this thread about the date of Revelation, not to any poster in particular. But I will tell you what, Spiritual Jew - since you don't like the way I post - I will put you on Ignore, you can put me on Ignore, and all will be groovy.

Timtofly said:

How many times have heaven and earth passed away?

Click to expand...

If we are to believe scripture, more than once.
Yahweh came down and shot arrows at Saul and his armies, laying the earth and sea bare to its foundations and shaking the heavens at that time (2 Samuel 22:8-16); Yahweh is depicted as having destroyed the universe when he judged Israel through Babylon (Jeremiah 4:22-30), and likewise destroyed it again when he judged Egypt by Babylon's King Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 32:1-16).

sovereigngrace said:

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.

Click to expand...

COMMON OLD TESTAMENT USES OF "HEAVEN AND EARTH"

(1) The witness to the Covenant between Jehovah and Israel was "Heaven and Earth", and that heaven and earth was specific, relating and connected only to Israel.

Deuteronomy 31:28
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.

Deuteronomy 4:26
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it;

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:

Leviticus 26:19
And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

Psalms 50:4
He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.

Isaiah 1:2
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me


(2) Israel's institution as a Nation under Moses and Joshua was the planting of Heavens and Earth

Isaiah 51:15-16
For I am Yahweh your God, who stirs up the sea, so that the waves of it roar: Yahweh of Hosts is his name. I have put my words in your mouth, and have covered you in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and tell Zion, You are my people.

Deuteronomy 31:28
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.


(3) The "shaking/removal of Heavens and Earth" describes any of Jehovah's comings in judgment upon nations and individuals

Against Ancient Babylon
Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Jeremiah 51:48
Then the heaven and the earth, and all that [is] therein, shall sing for Babylon: for the spoilers shall come unto her from the north, saith the LORD

Against King Saul
Psalms 18:7-10
Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills removed and were shaken, because he was wroth ... He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.

Against Persia during Zerubbabel's Day
Haggai 2:21
Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth

Contrary to the your assertion, the Hebrew phrase "heavens and earth" is very often symbolic in scripture and has various uses in both the N.T. and O.T. For example, Jesus said we would know "heavens and earth" had passed when the Law of Moses had been removed (Matthew 5:17-19), which was at AD 70. That's why Mark 13:1-31 about the destruction of the Temple also ties in the removal of "heaven and earth" (Mark 13:31) where only Christ's teaching remains after the Temple is gone.

The writer of Hebrews confirms this use of "heavens and earth" by saying that the switch over of the Old Covenant system to the New Covenant System was through and by the shaking of "heavens and earth" (Hebrews 12:18-28).