666

[Loukuss]

People that believe that the prophecies of Revelation have already happened, what do you see as the Second Coming then? Did our Savior already already come for us?

 

[ForeverEndeavor]

I find it distrubing how ignorant some of you are.

The 200,000,000 horsemen are actually the horsepower of the vehicles? C'mon. They're horsemen. The bible says so.

 

[lilangel04_86]

7 is the number of God it means completion. Example: God rested on the seventh day b/c the earth was finished. 6 is the number of man. See man was made in God's image, but he sinned he became unfinished. 666 is the number of the beast. therefore he is marked with man's symbol three times. Bear with me an i will learn why there is three sixes. i dont' know what the three means yet.

 

[ForeverEndeavor]

7 is the number of God it means completion. Example: God rested on the seventh day b/c the earth was finished. 6 is the number of man. See man was made in God's image, but he sinned he became unfinished. 666 is the number of the beast. therefore he is marked with man's symbol three times. Bear with me an i will learn why there is three sixes. i dont' know what the three means yet.

Actually there isnt a 3. Just 6's. And if you want to get technical, I believe it's 600 + 60 + 6 so 666

 

[Loukuss]

The 200,000,000 horsemen are actually the horsepower of the vehicles? C'mon. They're horsemen. The bible says so.

ya, forever, this guy is out to lunch. its amazing what kind of interpretations people will come up with.

 

[ForeverEndeavor]

ya, forever, this guy is out to lunch. its amazing what kind of interpretations people will come up with.

The thing that gets me is that we are being called ignorant because we don't beleive that nonsense.

I find it distrubing how ignorant some of you are.

By a guy named LSDanakin nonetheless.

 

[Loukuss]

By a guy named LSDanakin nonetheless.

One too many hits most likely....

 

[justified]

Alright!

For crying out loud, it's called the "Apocalypse" (it's greek title). The genre of the thing is Apocalyptic, it's not just a prophecy. It has the characteristics of prophecy, but that's not all it is. It is much more, and those differences radically change how you should interpret the texts!

Before you get into date
and before you argue about what the number seven means,

can we agree that this thing is the genre of apocalypse? And what does that mean for it?

 

[OttawaUk]

You know what, I've just come to the conclusion that preterists will bend and twist and play on words just to get things to sort of align in what they want people to believe. Yet when posed with questions they cannot answer them.

I don't buy it at all.

Nero is not 666. He cannot possibly be 666.

 

[CrossWord]

Several early Church fathers, including Eusebius, said Emperor Domitian arrested John and sent him to the penal mining colony at Patmos in 84 AD. And John was released in 96 AD upon Domitian's death, when he returned to Ephesus with the Revelation.
Plus several of the Churches the Revelation is addressed to were not in existence in 68 AD. And Philadelphia was not called Philadelphia until 96 AD.

Barry

According to the following, Philadelphia was the historical name of the city. Its name was changed for a short period and then changed back to Philadelphia before Jesus ministry even began:

http://www.arlev.clara.net/philadelphia.htm:

Strabo (12.8.18 and 13.4.10) recorded the existence of a series of earth tremors in the area when he wrote in 20AD which would indicate that the great earthquake continued with after-shocks which made the rebuilding of the city difficult.

In the latter of these two references, he notes:
"...[the] city of Philadelphia [is] subject to constant earthquakes. The walls of the houses are incessantly opening and sometimes one, sometimes another, part of the city is experiencing some damage..."

...In gratitude for the large amount of relief that was bestowed upon the city, coinage indicates that it changed its name to Neocaesarea shortly afterwards but it appears not to have been popular and Philadelphia was quickly reverted to. Some commentators think that this ‘new name’ is what is being alluded to in Rev 3:12 but the parallel seems a bit strained considering the renaming was short-lived and occurred before Jesus even began his earthly ministry.

Parousia has provided a lot of data supporting the 68-70 date, though not all of it valid. I however intend to check into this more myself. In a conservative commentary I have, (The Bible's Expositors Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelin) it says that Nero's and Domitian's reign are the only two viable options for the date of Revelation, but that the evidence is not conclusive for either of them.

Internal Evidence for the Early (Neronic) Date
...
(3) The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation chapter 11.
...

There are fourteen references in Revelation to a temple in heaven. Only in Rev 11:1-2 is there a reference to a temple that is even conceivably in Jerusalem. Note that "Jerusalem" is not actually mentioned in Chapter 11, and the fact that its a vision means we can't immediately infer that the Jerusalem temple was still standing. On the contrary, the repeated references to a temple in heaven, and the concluding statement in Revelation that there will be no temple at all in the new Jerusalem, strongly implies to me that the temple was not standing when Revelation was written. The "New" Jerusalem is the only Jerusalem referenced by name in Revelation, and that to me is also strong evidence that the Old Jerusalem was already destroyed.

None of the other internal evidence Parousia70 lists is even slightly compelling to me, with the exception of the following:

(2) According to the epistles to the churches, the Judaizers were persecuting the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). This assigns the book to the pre-AD 70 era, for the Jewish persecution of the Church dissolved at AD 70.

Did the Jewish persecution of the Church completely cease with the destruction of Jerusalem (in 70 A.D.)? Then maybe he's on to something here. However, both Rev 2:9 and 3:9 refer to "the synagogue of Satan". The fact that its talking about a synagogue and not a temple seems to imply to me that perhaps the temple was not standing at that time.

 

[parousia70]

Several early Church fathers, including Eusebius, said Emperor Domitian arrested John and sent him to the penal mining colony at Patmos in 84 AD. And John was released in 96 AD upon Domitian's death, when he returned to Ephesus with the Revelation.

fancy claim. care to share your source?

The fact is, all belief in the late date rests upon one cryptic statment of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200AD) who wrote his "Against Heresies" around AD 174. All those that hold to the late date do so because of this one uncertain phrase by Irenaeus, and it is highly controversial as to what Irenaeus said. Apologist H. Daniel Denham notes that the testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the late date, and goes on to admit some problems with this "bastion of evidence." First, the Greek language of Irenaeus can be understood to refer not to the Revelation, but to John being seen on Patmos. Second, he observes it is possible that Irenaeus has been misunderstood. Scholar Robert Young stated that the name Domitianou, referring actually to Nero, was mistaken by later writers for Domitian. Irenaeus' quote is listed below, with a few comments from well-respected scholars:

Irenaeus' Solitary Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)​

Robert Young (late 1800s)
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)

H. Daniel Denham (1979)
"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg
"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

"Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to "all the...ancient copies" of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were "ancient copies," was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus' estimation, the time of Domition's reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as "almost in our day." How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies" of a work the original of which has been written "almost" in his own time?" (Revelation: Four Views, p.18)

F.W. Farrar (1831-1904)
On Early Church Fathers that openly rejected Irenaeus' testimony
"The Alogi at the close of the second century rejected it [Revelation] only on internal grounds, and their judgment is of no importance. Gaius (circ. 200) appears to attribute it to Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 247) was inclined, on the grounds of style, to assign it to some other John, but speaks of it with reverence. Eusebius wavers about it, placing it among the spurious books in one passage, and among the acknowledged books in another. Cyril of Jerusalem (386) deliberately excludes it from the Canon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 381) omits it. Amphilochius, in his Jamb. ad Selecus, says that 'most' regard it as spurious. Junilius, even in the sixth, says that among the members of the Eastern Church it was viewed with great suspicion. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) never cites it. Theodoret (457) alludes to it very slightly. It is not found in the Peshito. The Nestorian Church rejected it. It is not mentioned in the sixth century by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Nicephorus (ninth century) in his Chronographia omits it. Even in the fourteenth century Nicephorus Callistus, while accepting it, thinks it necessary to mention that some held it to be the work of 'John the Presbyter,' regarded as a different person from 'John the Apostle.' " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

"...the authority of Irenaeus was not regarded as decisive, even if his meaning be undisputed. Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero. Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the 'Life of Timotheus,' of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that 'John was banished by the tyrant,' and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian. Moreover, if we accept erroneous tradition of inference from the ambiguous expressions of Irenaeus, we are landed in insuperable difficulties. By the time that Domitian died, St. John was, according to all testimony, so old and so infirm that even if there were no other obstacles in the way, it is impossible to conceive of him as writing the fiery pages of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus may have been misinterpreted; but even if not, he might have made a 'slip of memory,' and confused Domitian with Nero. ... We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero. " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

Plus several of the Churches the Revelation is addressed to were not in existence in 68 AD. And Philadelphia was not called Philadelphia until 96 AD.

Barry

C'mon Barry, if you are going to make these claims, do us a favor quote or link your sources, will ya?

 

[parousia70]

You know what, I've just come to the conclusion that preterists will bend and twist and play on words just to get things to sort of align in what they want people to believe. Yet when posed with questions they cannot answer them.

That is ridiculous at best, purposefully dishonest at worst.

You asked for my source for the early date.
I gave you several, and now you imply "i don't answer questions" ??

Sheesh.....

I then asked for your sources for the late date and you have so far given, lets see... a grand total of........NONE.

I think it is quite clear to our readers which one of us is refusing to answer questions.

Nero is not 666. He cannot possibly be 666.

Only with a previously held bias against such a view could you come to that conclusion.

A good article to dispell your assertion that nero "couldn't possibly be the beast of revelation" is:
"The Beast of revelation Identified" by Kenneth Gentry

Here's an exerpt from that article found here:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/gentry-ken_pp_02.html

Nero and Nero alone fits the bill as the specific or personal expression of the Beast. This vile character fulfills all the requirements of the principles derived from the very text of Revelation itself. Those principles are particularly abundant in Revelation 13. Notice:
First, in Revelation 13:18 the number of the Beast is the number of "a man" and that number is "666." Now the usefulness of this number lies in the fact that in ancient days alphabets served a two-fold purpose. Letters functioned, of course, as phonetic symbols. As such, they functioned just as our modern alphabet. But in ancient times letters also served as numerals, in that the Arabic numbering system was a later development of history.

A Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar's name was Nrwn Qsr n, e,r, o, n; q, s, r. It has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name provides us with precisely the value of 666. Is it not remarkable that this most relevant emperor has a name that fits precisely the required sum? Is this sheer historical accident? But there is more.

Second, the textual variant. If you consult a Bible with marginal references you may notice something of interest regarding Revelation 13:18. Your reference may say something to the effect: "Some manuscripts read 616." The fact is that the number 666 in some ancient manuscripts of Scripture is actually changed to 616. But why? Was it changed accidentally, or on purpose?

The difference surely is no accident of sight made by an early copiest. The numbers 666 and 616 are not even similar in appearance in the original Greek--whether spelled out in words or written out as numerals. As textual scholars agree, it must be intentional.

A strong and most reasonable case may be made for the following probability. John, a Jew, used a Hebrew spelling of Nero's name in order to arrive at the figure 666. But when Revelation began circulating among those less acquainted with Hebrew, a well-meaning copiest who knew the meaning of 666 might have intended to make its deciphering easier by altering it to 616. It surely is no mere coincidence that 616 is the numerical value of "Nero Caesar," when spelled in Hebrew by transliterating it from its more widely familiar Latin spelling.

Such a conjecture would satisfactorily explain the rationale for the divergence: so that the non-Hebrew mind might more readily discern the identity of the Beast. Such a possibility offers are markable confirmation of the designation of Nero.

Third, the beastly image. In Revelation 13 the one behind the 666 riddle is specifically designated a "Beast." The Greek word for"beast" is often used of the wild, carnivorous animals employed in the cruel Roman arenas. Because of its natural association, the term is often quite aptly used figuratively of persons with "a 'bestial' nature, beast, monster."

Not only is the word "Beast" employed by John in this passage,but he even symbolically represents this fearsome being with horrible, beastly imagery. This Beast is a compound of such feared and destructive carnivores such as the leopard, bear, and lion.

Now it is almost universally agreed that Nero was one who was possessed of a "bestial nature." Nero was even feared and hated by his own countrymen. His bestial cruelty is evidenced in the writings of the Roman historian Suetonius (A.D. 70-160), who speaks of Nero's "cruelty of disposition" evidencing itself at an early age. He documents Nero's evil and states: "neither discriminationn or moderation [were employed] in putting to death whosoever he pleased on any pretext whatever." Suetonius notes that Nero"compelled four hundred senators and six hundred Roman knights, some of whom were well to do and of unblemished reputation, to fight in the arena." He enjoyed homosexual rape and torture. He ruthlessly killed his parents, brother, wife, aunt, and many others close to him and of high station in Rome.

Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 56-117) spoke of Nero's "cruel nature" that "put to death so many innocent men." Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79) described Nero as "the destroyer of the human race" and "the poison of the world." Roman satirist Juvenal (A.D. 60-140) speaks of "Nero's cruel and bloody tyranny."Elsewhere he calls Nero a "cruel tyrant."

Nero so affected the imagination that the pagan writer Apollinius of Tyana, a contemporary of Nero, specifically mentions that Nero was called a "beast": "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. . . . And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet."

Fourth, the war with the saints. The Beast is said to "make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Rev. 13:7). In fact, he is said to conduct such blasphemous warfare for a specific period of time: 42 months (Rev. 13:5).

The Neronic persecution, which was initiated by Nero in A.D.64, was the first ever Roman assault on Christianity. Two of his most famous victims are the apostles Peter and Paul.

As Church father Eusebius notes: "Nero was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion."Sulpicius Severus concurs: "He first attempted to abolish the name of Christian." In his Annals Roman historian Tacitus points to those who were persecuted as "those who . . . were vulgarly called Christians."

Roman historian Suetonius concurs, for in a list of the few "positive" contributions of Nero as emperor, he includes the fact that Nero persecuted Christians: "During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made:. . . . Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

Noted church historian J. L. von Mosheim wrote of Nero's persecution:

"Foremost in the rank of those emperors, on whom the church looks back with horror as her persecutors, stands Nero, a prince whose conduct towards the Christians admits of no palliation, but was to the last degree unprincipled and inhuman. The dreadful persecution which took place by order of this tyrant, commenced at Rome about the middle of November, in the year of our Lord 64. . . . This dreadful persecution ceased but with the death of Nero. The empire, it is well known, was not delivered from the tyranny of this monster until the year 68, when he put an end to his own life." (L. von Mosheim, Historical Commentaries, I:138,139).



​

Nero died on June 8, A.D. 68, 42 months later, but for a few days. It was only then that the Neronic persecution formally ended, as Rome's attention was turned to the eruption of its own civil war.


Fifth, the death of the Beast. Nero Caesar fits the entire bill for the personal manifestation of the Beast in Revelation. The Beast not only slays by the sword, but ultimately is to die of a sword wound: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints" (Rev.13:10).

That Nero did in fact kill by the sword is well-attested fact.Paul, for example, is said to have died under Nero by decapitation by means of the sword. Tertullian credits "Nero's cruel sword" as providing the martyr's blood as seed for the church. He urges his Roman readers to "Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect."

Likewise, history records for us that Nero took his own life by sword. Roman historian Suetonius writes in Nero (ch. 49): "Then with the help of his secretary, Epaphroditus, he stabbed himself in the throat."

The evidence is strong and well-grounded in historical fact: Nero Caesar was the personal expression of the Beast of Revelation.

 

[parousia70]

Okay, parausia70, let's say you're right and John wrote it in 68AD while Nero was in power.

Yes, lets.
For as I have detailed, there is good reason to.

I'm still interested in your sources for the late date, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[NumberOneSon]

You know what, I've just come to the conclusion that preterists will bend and twist and play on words just to get things to sort of align in what they want people to believe. Yet when posed with questions they cannot answer them.

I don't buy it at all.

Nero is not 666. He cannot possibly be 666.

OttowaUK, don't you realize that the very thing we preterists are asserting has been believed in the Church for going on close to 1900 years? This isn't some newfangled preterist theory - this interpretation of Rev. 13 has been accepted throughout our Church's entire history.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Yes, lets.
For as I have detailed, there is good reason to.

I'm still interested in your sources for the late date, but I won't hold my breath.

Actually, only preterists need to prove an early date -cause they depend on it for their doctrine.

http://www.raptureready.com/featured/DateBookRevelation.html
"...Preterists teach that the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy about the Roman war against the Jews in Israel that began in a.d. 67 and ended with the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. In order for Revelation to be a prediction of the future (Rev. 1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20) and if it was fulfilled by August a.d. 70, then it had to have been written by a.d. 65 or 66 for the preterist interpretation to even be a possibility. Preterist Ken Gentry has noted this major weakness when he said of fellow early date advocate David Chilton, " if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton's entire labor would go up in smoke." [1] Actually, all one would have to do is to show that Revelation was written any time after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The futurists interpretation is not dependant upon the date of Revelation since it does not matter when these events take place since they are still future to our own time. However, the date of Revelation is essential to the preterist position and explains why they are so focused upon defending an early date. There are two lines of evidence: external (evidence from outside the Revelation) and internal (evidence from inside the Revelation).

Today, the overwhelming consensus of scholarship believes that Revelation was written well after a.d. 70. Most have concluded that Revelation was written around a.d. 95, primarily because of the statement by early church father Irenaeus (a.d. 120-202) around a.d. 180.



We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.[2]



It is important to note that Irenaeus was from Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Apostle John was also from Ephesus in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was discipled in the faith by Polycarp who was discipled by the Apostle John. Thus, there is a direct link between the one who wrote Revelation and Irenaeus. This strongly supports the credibility of Irenaeus and his statement. Significantly, no other tradition relating to the date of Revelation developed or gained a following in this part of the world. This is the very area to which the Revelation was given. Later, other traditions developed in the territories of Christendom of a different time of the writing of Revelation. However, these were areas where Revelation was not taken as literally as in Asia Minor. It appears logical that if the theory teaching an earlier date of Revelation were genuine, then it should have had a witness to it in Asia Minor and would have begun earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. If the early date were really true, then it would have had a 30-year head start to establish itself within early church tradition. However, that is not what happened. Such reality argues against the early date view and is a strong support for the late date view.

Further support for Irenaeus' statement is seen in some of the early enemies of Irenaeus' interpretation of Revelation. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, to name just a few, support Irenaeus' statement of a Domitian date. They did not believe that the statement of Irenaeus was not clear and should be doubted, as many contemporary preterists desperately contend. Yet all the ancients who were on record concerning this mater accept our understanding of Irenaeus, as do modern translators. It is also not true that early date support goes back to a single individual (although there would be nothing wrong with that since the truth of a matter is often traced back to a single source), since Hegesippus' (a.d. 150) testimony pre-dates Irenaeus.[3]

" The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the Syriac translation of the New Testament in a.d. 550," notes Mark Hitchcock. " Only two other external witnesses to the early date exist: Arethas (c. 900) and Theophylact (d. 1107)." This is scant " evidence," needless to say, upon which to draw such dogmatic conclusion, as is often done by many Preterists. On the other hand, Hitchcock notes that the late date " has an unbroken line of support form some of the greatest, most reliable names in church history, beginning in a.d. 150. . . . The external evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for the composition of Revelation." [4]..."

click the link to check sources and read the rest of the article by Thomas Ice.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You know what, I've just come to the conclusion that preterists will bend and twist and play on words just to get things to sort of align in what they want people to believe. Yet when posed with questions they cannot answer them.

I don't buy it at all.

Nero is not 666. He cannot possibly be 666.

Agreed.

In the article by Thomas Ice that I linked and pasted a portion of in my last post, He completely destroys, by historical writings and other evidences, the claims of those who would say that the doctrine the preterists put forth was believed for 2000 years.

a bit more of it;
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/DateBookRevelation.html#_edn4
...If John wrote early (a.d. 64- 66) then it is likely that Paul' s two letters to Timothy, who was in Ephesus at the time, would overlap with John' s writing of Revelation and his letter to the church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7). It would also mean that, " Paul likely wrote 2 Timothy after John wrote to the church." [6] The problem is that the error that Christ points out to the Ephesians in Revelation should have surfaced in Paul' s epistles if they were written around the same time. However, these problems are not evident in Paul' s writings. Further, it is unlikely that John had moved to Ephesus until after Peter and Paul had passed from the scene. Philip Schaff tells us: " It was probably the martyrdom of Peter and Paul that induced John to take charge of the orphan churches, exposed to serious danger and trials." [7]
Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that no church existed during the ministry of Paul. Paul died around a.d. 66- 67. Thus, there was not even a church in existence at Smyrna when the early daters say John wrote to them. Needless to say, this strongly favors the late date.

The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14- 22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in a.d. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ' s statement to church that says, " I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing" (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding.

John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because he was banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were written during the reign of Nero, then why wouldn' t John have been killed like Peter and Paul? Banishment was Domitian' s favorite way to persecute Christians. " Moreover, we have no evidence of Nero' s use of banishment for Christians." [8]



Conclusion
Since a preterist interpretation of Revelation requires an early date of the final book in the Bible, preterists go to great lengths in their attempts to make their view appear viable. The Domitianic date is the overwhelmingly accepted view of scholarship in our day and throughout most of church history. Nothing in Revelation itself contradicts such a conclusion. It appears the major reason that preterists believe in an early date for Revelation is that their system requires it. In this instance the saying is true that necessity is the mother of invention. Maranatha!"

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You know what, I've just come to the conclusion that preterists will bend and twist and play on words just to get things to sort of align in what they want people to believe. Yet when posed with questions they cannot answer them.

I don't buy it at all.

Nero is not 666. He cannot possibly be 666.

And more, from the article, showing the neccessity of an early date for Revelation by the preterists because they desperately need an early date for their very modern doctrine to stand.


"Internal Evidence
Many Preterists contend that there are two major reasons from the Book of Revelation itself that provide proof for their earlier date. First, they argue that since John refers to a Temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-2), then it must have been standing at the time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the Temple's destruction in a.d. 70. Next they contend that the seven kings of Revelation 17:1-16 refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Preterists contend that " one is" (Rev. 17:10) would be a reference to Nero Caesar and " the other is not yet come" (Rev. 17:10) would be Galba. Thus, while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future. This would mean, according to Preterists, that Revelation was written while Nero was still alive.

In rebuttal to the first Preterists argument, it must be remembered that in the Book of Revelation John is receiving a vision about future things. He is transported in some way to that future time in order to view events as they will unfold. The word "saw" is used 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future events through a vision. It does not matter at all whether the Temple is thought to be standing in Jerusalem at the time that John sees the vision since that would not have any bearing upon a vision. John is told by an angel to " measure the temple" (Rev. 11:1). Measure what Temple? He is to measure the Temple in the vision. Even if there were a temple still standing in Jerusalem, John was on the Island of Patmos and would not have been allowed to go and measure that Temple. Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a Temple (Ezek. 40- 43) was told to measure that Temple. When Ezekiel saw and was told to measure a Temple there was not one standing in Jerusalem (Preterists agree). Thus, there is no compulsion whatsoever to conclude that just because a temple is referenced in Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical Temple standing in Jerusalem at the same time.

The other Preterist argument is polluted by the same assumption that underlies their previous contention about the Temple. Preterists assume that the line of kings refer to a first century succession of Roman kings and then pronounces Nero as the one to which Revelation 17:10 refers. This is just an assumption and begs the question. John is seeing, recording, and commenting on a vision of the future. Thus, the time frame that he is referencing would be that of whatever time he was viewing the future. This cannot then be used as a proof that he was viewing a particular time frame, without having previously, in some other way, established the period of time that he views in the vision. Preterists have not previously established when such a time frame is to take place. This line of reasoning by Preterists is not an internal proof for a Neronian date for Revelation. All of the alleged proofs for an early date presuppose a preterist interpretation (this certainly has not been established) as a false stating point in which they attempt to argue from."
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/DateBookRevelation.html#_edn4

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I posted the link to Thomas Ice's article because he has thouroughly dealt with the doctrines of the Preterists, Gentry, and Gary DeMar, whose doctrines are being used in this thread, and so, instead of trying to post rebuttals to Gentry and DeMar which have been well rebutted, I pasted from Ice's rebuttals.

Here's another article that deals with these errors and shows why they are errors; http://www.ldolphin.org/preterism-ice.html

 

[justified]

instead of trying to post rebuttals to Gentry and DeMar which have been well rebutted

That's one of the most awkward sentences I've heard in a long time.

The book of Revelation was never meant to be taken literally. It's not that it's already happened, but that it was never supposed to happen. Thank the LORD that the doctrine of the return of Christ and such things comes also from non-apocalyptic sources. Because if people knew what they were talking about, they would have burned the LaHaye and Jenkins, Scofield, Dake, and all the others, long, long ago.

 

[OttawaUk]

Paraousia, you continue to dodge my questions. Answer these simple questions.

How could Nero be 666 when you're claiming John wrote Revelation during Nero's reign? I'm agreeing with you that John wrote this durin Nero's reign, fine!

1) The head of the beast which was 666 was "yet to come". Nero was already in power! How could he possibly be 666?
2) Nero would've been the sixth head of the Beast which WAS, because you're claiming he was in power at the time John wrote it.
3) Who in history were the 10 horns (kings) which got power under the beast?
4) Who was GIVEN power over the whole world?
5) Where was the image of the beast?
6) Where was the mark of the beast?
7) Where was the False Prophet?
8) Where did the 10 kings destroy Babylon the Great?
9) What city was Babylon the Great?

And finally, the most important question of all...

10) Why would God give John this Revelation and make it so rich in symbolism and according to you, be so wrong when explaining who was and is, when Nero was 666? It makes no sense.

I don't care if someone had this view for 1900 years, people have not believed in God for 6000 years, it doesn't mean they are correct!!!!!!!!

Its like some of you have so stubbornly imbeded yourself in these views that you don't even ask yourself logical questions anymore.

It cannot possibly be Nero, therefore your whole theory falls apart.