Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[sovereigngrace]

I agree Eusebius was an fine historian.

while his quote of irenaeus seemingly confirms the antecedent of “it” as the vision and not necessarily John, that doesn’t change his partial preterist position on eschatology, as such I doubt this un-provable debate will change the minds of those who already settled on their eschatology.

do you agree with Eusebius’ statement below starting with “all authorities concur”?

EUSEBIUS Bishop of Caesarea (c. 265 - 340) Extract from the 'Theophania'
"All authorities concur in the declaration that "when all these things should have been done" "The End" should come : that "the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets" : it should be completed : time should now be no more : the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass : in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets : or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realized on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations ; God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world.His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days--in obedience, faith and hope.'

His statement “all authorities concur” refers to his opinion of the biblical writers on the matter of the end of the old covenant and the introduction of the new. This has nothing to do with the date of Revelation.

 

[parousia70]

If you would answer my question (I asked first) then I'll answer your questions. Once again, my question to you is why is the book of Revelation not addressed to churches in and around Jerusalem if most of the events described after chapter 3 had to do with things that would happen in and around Jerusalem in 70 AD?

Sorry I thought I did answer it in my Post #267 when I said:

"It's not as though Israel wasn't well warned in the Gospels and epistles already.

Clearly John is affirming my previous point, that AD70 was an empire wide Judgement."

Seems to me John Felt Israel was well warned already, yet the rest of the Jews, and Christians who had fallen back into Judaism elsewhere in the empire, needed further confirmation that Just because they weren't in Jerusalem proper at that time, it did not mean they could avoid the Soon coming Judgement upon them all.

So, Did Jesus fail to come as a thief to Sardis or did he Succeed?

 

[parousia70]

The coming of Christ is a literal physical climactic event. You cannot spiritualize it away to fit Preterism.

Rather, You cannot hyper literalize language that is Clearly metaphor to suit your futurist bias.

Acts 1:10 says, “while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

1. Only The Apostles, not the whole word, saw Him go - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
2. He Left as a Humble Servant - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
3. He handed out no punishments or rewards at His Ascencion - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
4. He was not seen departing with Angelic armies in tow - will His return be "in Like Manner"?

It's incredibly easy to demonstrate that Even you believe and assert that "in like manner" does not mean "exact in every detail" so I'd recommend you stop pretending it does. Our readers are smart enough to see through that.

Revelation 1:7 declares: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Revelation 1:7).

1. The cloud-coming of Revelation 1:7 that "every eye would see" is shown in Revelation 14:14-20 to be an event that occurs in the heavenly realms. As the passage reveals, Christ's actions and commands in the heavenlies result in various tribulation-period disasters that transpire on earth. Simply put, Revelation 14:14-20 IS the cloud-coming that "every eye would see." This is significant, for St. John is not describing the coming of Christ as some visual spectacular with cumulus clouds in the skies overhead, but as the coming of Yahweh himself, making Christ equal with the Father. Jesus promised his apostles that he would return in their lifetimes "in the glory of the Father" (Matt 16:27-28; Lk. 9:26; Matt 24:33-34). Christ's return at AD 67-70 was precisely in the manner and tradition of Yahweh's Old-Testament-era comings cited above.

Here we see the most public event of all time - the literal, visible, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ. This passage unmistakably shows that the glorious Second Advent will be the most amazing public event ever. To such an extent that “every eye shall see him.”

Did every eye of everyone in every nation See the public event of Gods actual arm as scripture specifically says here:

Jehovah hath made bare His holy arm before the eyes of all nations (Isa 52:10)

Please furnish us with Global eyewitness accounts.

Did EVERY EYE of Every person of every nation SEE the public event of God executing Judgment upon Israel at the time of the Babylonian Exile as "scripture specifically says" here:

Behold, I, even I, am against you; and I will execute judgments in the midst of you before the eyes of the nations. (Ez 5:7-9)

Please furnish us with global eyewitness accounts.

Did ALL FLESH SEE the public event of God Kindling the fire In Israel that devoured every green tree there at that same time as "scripture specifically says" here?

Hear the word of Yahweh: Thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burnt thereby. All flesh shall see that I, Yahweh, have kindled it...
(Ez 20:33-35,47-48; 21:3-5)

Please furnish us with global eyewitness accounts.

Every time Yahweh "came in the clouds" and was "seen by all eyes" throughout the OT He did so INVISIBLY. We have absolutely ZERO scriptural instruction to make that same language mean something POLAR OPPOSITE to the clear and consistent OT teaching when we find it in the NT.
ZERO.

 

[claninja]

I appreciate the response, but none of this explains why the letter/book wouldn't have also been addressed to churches in and around Jerusalem if the main event (not the only one, but the main one) centered around things that would happen in Jerusalem in the near future (from the time it was written).

Absolutely. But as stated that’s not a question that can be answered, as there is no information as to why it was only written 7 churches in Asia. Do we have a history of john’s ministry and why he was preaching in Asia?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Absolutely. But as stated that’s not a question that can be answered, as there is no information as to why it was only written 7 churches in Asia. Do we have a history of john’s ministry and why he was preaching in Asia?

That is not a very convincing answer.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Sorry I thought I did answer it in my Post #267 when I said:

"It's not as though Israel wasn't well warned in the Gospels and epistles already.

Clearly John is affirming my previous point, that AD70 was an empire wide Judgement."

Seems to me John Felt Israel was well warned already, yet the rest of the Jews, and Christians who had fallen back into Judaism elsewhere in the empire, needed further confirmation that Just because they weren't in Jerusalem proper at that time, it did not mean they could avoid the Soon coming Judgement upon them all.

It seems like you think you made a convincing argument here. I strongly disagree. There is no indication whatsoever in Revelation 2 and 3 that the messages given to the churches were only meant for Jews. The messages were for everyone in those churches, including both Jews and Gentiles.

Also, if the things that are written about in Revelation 4-19 center mainly around events in and around Jerusalem (that is what you believe, isn't it?) then it would not make sense for the book to only be addressed to churches in the province of Asia. It would make a lot more sense that it would also have been addressed to the churches in Jerusalem since most of what is described in the book would involve their city (based on your partial preterist view). So, the argument that they were warned already and didn't need to be warned in Revelation is very weak, in my opinion.

So, Did Jesus fail to come as a thief to Sardis or did he Succeed?

I don't know. Did they fail to wake up and repent? Him coming to them as a thief depended on whether or not they repented.

What about the fact that there was a major earthquake in Laodicea around 60 AD and it took them around 25 years to rebuild? What Jesus said to the church in Laodicea in Revelation 3 could not possibly have applied to them from 64-66 AD (assuming you believe it was written sometime during that time frame). They would not have been wealthy only 5 or so years since they had experienced a major earthquake.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Rather, You cannot hyper literalize language that is Clearly metaphor to suit your futurist bias.

1. Only The Apostles, not the whole word, saw Him go - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
2. He Left as a Humble Servant - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
3. He handed out no punishments or rewards at His Ascencion - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
4. He was not seen departing with Angelic armies in tow - will His return be "in Like Manner"?

It's incredibly easy to demonstrate that Even you believe and assert that "in like manner" does not mean "exact in every detail" so I'd recommend you stop pretending it does. Our readers are smart enough to see through that.

Can you please tell us how you interpret Acts 1:11?

 

[DavidPT]

So, Did Jesus fail to come as a thief to Sardis or did he Succeed?

If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee(Revelation 3:1)

This to me sounds exactly like the following.

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

Even if you agree with me, we still wouldn't be fully in agreement since I don't interpret Matthew 24:42-43 to be involving 70 AD like you apparently do. The interesting thing about it, if you do perhaps agree these are referring to the same coming, and that you apply the coming in Matthew 24:42-43 to that of 70 AD, this means you would need to apply Revelation 3:1 to 70 AD as well, yet there is not a single hint in Revelation 3 anywhere that any of this might involve 70 AD.


As to me, since I take Matthew 24:42-43 to be involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age, and that I take what is quoted in Revelation 3:1 above to be meaning exactly what Jesus said in the Discourse as well, I then take Revelation 3:1 to also involve the 2nd coming in the end of this age.

 

[claninja]

His statement “all authorities concur” refers to his opinion of the biblical writers on the matter of the end of the old covenant and the introduction of the new. This has nothing to do with the date of Revelation.

please read my responses more carefully. My intention was not to “prove” the dating of revelation. My Point was that despite Eusebius seemingly confirming a post-70ad revelation by quoting ireneaus, that didn’t stop Eusebius from believing the old heavens and earth had already passed away and the new heavens and earth and new Jerusalem were already established in the first century per Samuel Lee’s dissertation.

That is not a very convincing answer.

you clearly are not carefully reading my responses. I literally said “that’s not a question that can be answered”.

Scripture doesn’t say why John wrote only to 7 churches in Asia. But we do know the great trial was to come over the whole world, and that the church of Philadelphia was to be kept from it (Romans 3:10).

what was the great trial, in your opinion? And when do you place this trial?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Rather, You cannot hyper literalize language that is Clearly metaphor to suit your futurist bias.

1. Only The Apostles, not the whole word, saw Him go - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
2. He Left as a Humble Servant - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
3. He handed out no punishments or rewards at His Ascencion - will His return be "in Like Manner"?
4. He was not seen departing with Angelic armies in tow - will His return be "in Like Manner"?

It's incredibly easy to demonstrate that Even you believe and assert that "in like manner" does not mean "exact in every detail" so I'd recommend you stop pretending it does. Our readers are smart enough to see through that.

1. The cloud-coming of Revelation 1:7 that "every eye would see" is shown in Revelation 14:14-20 to be an event that occurs in the heavenly realms. As the passage reveals, Christ's actions and commands in the heavenlies result in various tribulation-period disasters that transpire on earth. Simply put, Revelation 14:14-20 IS the cloud-coming that "every eye would see." This is significant, for St. John is not describing the coming of Christ as some visual spectacular with cumulus clouds in the skies overhead, but as the coming of Yahweh himself, making Christ equal with the Father. Jesus promised his apostles that he would return in their lifetimes "in the glory of the Father" (Matt 16:27-28; Lk. 9:26; Matt 24:33-34). Christ's return at AD 67-70 was precisely in the manner and tradition of Yahweh's Old-Testament-era comings cited above.

Did every eye of everyone in every nation See the public event of Gods actual arm as scripture specifically says here:

Jehovah hath made bare His holy arm before the eyes of all nations (Isa 52:10)

Please furnish us with Global eyewitness accounts.

Did EVERY EYE of Every person of every nation SEE the public event of God executing Judgment upon Israel at the time of the Babylonian Exile as "scripture specifically says" here:

Behold, I, even I, am against you; and I will execute judgments in the midst of you before the eyes of the nations. (Ez 5:7-9)

Please furnish us with global eyewitness accounts.

Did ALL FLESH SEE the public event of God Kindling the fire In Israel that devoured every green tree there at that same time as "scripture specifically says" here?

Hear the word of Yahweh: Thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burnt thereby. All flesh shall see that I, Yahweh, have kindled it...
(Ez 20:33-35,47-48; 21:3-5)

Please furnish us with global eyewitness accounts.

Every time Yahweh "came in the clouds" and was "seen by all eyes" throughout the OT He did so INVISIBLY. We have absolutely ZERO scriptural instruction to make that same language mean something POLAR OPPOSITE to the clear and consistent OT teaching when we find it in the NT.
ZERO.

The 11 disciples were direct material witnesses to the ascension of Jesus Christ up from the earth toward heaven. This passage tells us it is the actual “manner” or tropos (meaning style or mode) of His glorious ascent into heaven that will be the way He will return. How did He go?

Literally, physically, visibly.

•Physically: “This same Jesus.”
•Visibly: “while they beheld,” “they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up” and “as ye have seen Him go.”
•Literally: “In like manner.”

Contrary to Pretrib and Preterist beliefs, the second coming of Christ is not a secret event. Such a mistaken view emanates from a wrong understanding of Scripture. Revelation 1:7 declares: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Revelation 1:7).

Did every eye see Jesus coming back in AD70? Of course not! That is absurd!

Upon His appearing, did the Jews wail over Him? Of course not! That is absurd! Equally, did the Gentiles also wail because of him? Of course not! That is absurd!

Here we see the most public event of all time - the literal, visible, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ. This passage unmistakably shows that the glorious Second Advent will be the most amazing public event ever. To such an extent that “every eye shall see him.”

 

[sovereigngrace]

please read my responses more carefully. My intention was not to “prove” the dating of revelation. My Point was that despite Eusebius seemingly confirming a post-70ad revelation by quoting ireneaus, that didn’t stop Eusebius from believing the old heavens and earth had already passed away and the new heavens and earth and new Jerusalem were already established in the first century.



you clearly are not carefully reading my responses. I literally said “that’s not a question that can be answered”.

Scripture doesn’t say why John wrote only to 7 churches in Asia. But we do know the great trial was to come over the whole world, and that the church of Philadelphia was to be kept from it (Romans 3:10).

what was the great trial, in your opinion? And when do you place this trial?

I don't deny your opening point re Eusebius. But that was not the standard teaching of the early Church. What Philadelphia went through was not the second coming. It was also not the great tribulation. That was at Jerusalem. Your overall evidence is therefore weak.

 

[claninja]

I don't deny your opening point re Eusebius. But that was not the standard teaching of the early Church. What Philadelphia went through was not the second coming. It was also not the great tribulation. That was at Jerusalem. Your overall evidence is therefore weak.

The early church father’s eschatology was all over the place. So I take any early church eschatological doctrine with a grain of salt.

I never said what Philadelphia went through was the 2nd coming. Notice revelations 3:10 says Christ would keep them from the hour of trial that was to come over all the world. You disagree that was the great tribulation mentioned in the olivet discourse?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The early church father’s eschatology was all over the place. So I take any early church eschatological doctrine with a grain of salt.

I never said what Philadelphia went through was the 2nd coming. Notice revelations 3:10 says Christ would keep them from the hour of trial that was to come over all the world. You disagree that was the great tribulation mentioned in the olivet discourse?

I disagree that that was the great tribulation on Israel.

 

[parousia70]

if the things that are written about in Revelation 4-19 center mainly around events in and around Jerusalem (that is what you believe, isn't it?) then it would not make sense for the book to only be addressed to churches in the province of Asia.

Seem like your view suffers from the same conundrum.
if the things that are written about in Revelation 2-3 center mainly around events thousands of years removed from the 1st century Asia Minor Churches, and not the those 1st century congregations themselves, then it would not make sense for the book to be addressed to 1st century churches in the province of Asia, now would it?

I don't know. Did they fail to wake up and repent? Him coming to them as a thief depended on whether or not they repented.

The second coming of Jesus Christ was a conditional first-century event based on the decisions of men??? The second coming of Jesus Christ was delayed 2000+ years because some first-century men in Sardis did or did not not repent when Jesus attempted to come back for them? Not hardly.

St. John did not say Christ's coming to them was conditional. RATHER, what was conditional was whether or not Jesus was going to reward them or punish them at his coming to them. That Jesus was returning to those seven churches of Asia Minor is not in question, if we are to trust the words of St. John and Jesus Christ.

There is only one "coming of Christ as a thief" prophesied in scripture, not multiple, the timing of that coming is not dependent of the actions of men.

Compare also to Thyatira where Jesus promised to come and kill off their false prophetess and her followers (Rev 2:20-25). Jesus gave her time to repent and she did not. Therefore Jesus promised to come kill her and her followers, and the godly ones in Thyatira were told to hang on for that coming (Rev 2:25)! I remind everyone reading here that Jesus could not lie to them or break his promises, else He is not Messiah. There is no way around this--Jesus Christ plainly applied his second coming to all the first-century Churches mentioned in Revelation. It is a simple fact.

As everyone can plainly see, Revelation 2-3 is Christ's judgment, the judgment at Christ's coming. The punishments and/or rewards received were based "according to their works," as was predicted in the gospels and epistles:

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Romans 2:5-8
thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to every man according to his works: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath

The thief's coming itself was not conditional, and it was fulfilled exactly when Jesus and the apostles believed it would be--in their generation.

The coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief is NOT A CONDITIONAL EVENT. According to scripture, the coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief was to take place irrespective of whether some repented and others did not -- in fact, scripture fully and uniformly teaches that some would be faithful and others unfaithful (Romans 2:5-9; Mt 25:1-13; Lk 13:24-30; 1 Cor 3:12-15). As the angel also plainly states:

Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."

Did you catch that? Man's repentance or lack thereof has nothing to do with the timing of the coming of Christ as a Thief. Nothing whatsoever. Note also that Jesus explicitly says that the Thyatria Prophetess movement chose not to repent, and that He was coming and would kill her and her "children." But to the rest at Thyatria (the faithful), they were to hold fast and had no additional burden placed upon them, for Jesus had rewards to give them as stated in Rev 2:26-28. We know that Christ came to them, for he came and killed the Prophetess and rewarded the faithful as he said. This is all first-century stuff here. No "Church Age," no "1948," no "21st century computer chips" -- the glorified Jesus knew of none of those modern speculative doctrines, and that makes them impossible doctrines, ones not found anywhere in scripture. Had any of those things been biblical doctrines, then Jesus would not be speaking to first-century churches about His coming TO THEM as we see him doing in Revelation 2-3, where He plainly applies the doctrine to first-century people.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Seem like your view suffers from the same conundrum.
if the things that are written about in Revelation 2-3 center mainly around events thousands of years removed from the 1st century Asia Minor Churches, and not the those 1st century congregations themselves, then it would not make sense for the book to be addressed to 1st century churches in the province of Asia, now would it?



The second coming of Jesus Christ was a conditional first-century event based on the decisions of men??? The second coming of Jesus Christ was delayed 2000+ years because some first-century men in Sardis did or did not not repent when Jesus attempted to come back for them? Not hardly.

St. John did not say Christ's coming to them was conditional. RATHER, what was conditional was whether or not Jesus was going to reward them or punish them at his coming to them. That Jesus was returning to those seven churches of Asia Minor is not in question, if we are to trust the words of St. John and Jesus Christ.

There is only one "coming of Christ as a thief" prophesied in scripture, not multiple, the timing of that coming is not dependent of the actions of men.

Compare also to Thyatira where Jesus promised to come and kill off their false prophetess and her followers (Rev 2:20-25). Jesus gave her time to repent and she did not. Therefore Jesus promised to come kill her and her followers, and the godly ones in Thyatira were told to hang on for that coming (Rev 2:25)! I remind everyone reading here that Jesus could not lie to them or break his promises, else He is not Messiah. There is no way around this--Jesus Christ plainly applied his second coming to all the first-century Churches mentioned in Revelation. It is a simple fact.

As everyone can plainly see, Revelation 2-3 is Christ's judgment, the judgment at Christ's coming. The punishments and/or rewards received were based "according to their works," as was predicted in the gospels and epistles:

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Romans 2:5-8
thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to every man according to his works: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath

The thief's coming itself was not conditional, and it was fulfilled exactly when Jesus and the apostles believed it would be--in their generation.

The coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief is NOT A CONDITIONAL EVENT. According to scripture, the coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief was to take place irrespective of whether some repented and others did not -- in fact, scripture fully and uniformly teaches that some would be faithful and others unfaithful (Romans 2:5-9; Mt 25:1-13; Lk 13:24-30; 1 Cor 3:12-15). As the angel also plainly states:

Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."

Did you catch that? Man's repentance or lack thereof has nothing to do with the timing of the coming of Christ as a Thief. Nothing whatsoever. Note also that Jesus explicitly says that the Thyatria Prophetess movement chose not to repent, and that He was coming and would kill her and her "children." But to the rest at Thyatria (the faithful), they were to hold fast and had no additional burden placed upon them, for Jesus had rewards to give them as stated in Rev 2:26-28. We know that Christ came to them, for he came and killed the Prophetess and rewarded the faithful as he said. This is all first-century stuff here. No "Church Age," no "1948," no "21st century computer chips" -- the glorified Jesus knew of none of those modern speculative doctrines, and that makes them impossible doctrines, ones not found anywhere in scripture. Had any of those things been biblical doctrines, then Jesus would not be speaking to first-century churches about His coming TO THEM as we see him doing in Revelation 2-3, where He plainly applies the doctrine to first-century people.

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 and the coming of Jesus as a thief is now 2000 years ago to Asia Minor. This does not add up and crudely exemplifies Preterism. There are so many holes in this doctrine it cannot hold water.

You are clearly winging it.

And you wonder why most Amils reject this doctrine!

 

[Gundy22]

It is good to focus on the 1st century asian churches - and not make them represent "churches through the ages". parousia70 is on to something now.

 

[Gundy22]

The 1st century Jezebel's CHILDREN will be killed - I don't know that the prophetess herself will be.

 

[Gundy22]

Is JERUSALEM the MYSTERY BABYLON? There are instances of places/cities NOT BEING ACTUALLY WHO/WHERE THEY WERE...

Sodom - Egypt - where also our Lord was crucified... we see several references to Jerusalem under NAMES OTHER THAN JERUSALEM

Jerusalem itself is about to be wiped out - or has recently been wiped out.

I hold to Partial Preterism WHETHER OR NOT REVELATION WAS WRITTEN before or after the Temple was destroyed.

 

[Gundy22]

IOW - the entire OP is rather moot to me - I DO NOT CARE what year the Revelation was penned

I think it may have been smuggled off the island before John was released

It was being read in these 7 actual churches - and elsewhere

It is likely that before the average 1st century audience ever actually read Revelation (or rather HEARD IT READ) - that no stone stood on another (I am of the opinion that the Wailing Wall was part of a Roman fort - and not actually part of the Temple itself.)

By the time most 1st century Christians are reading Revelation - or HEARING IT READ - the Temple was already TOAST - and they knew it.

 

[Gundy22]

Nero himself had already committed suicide - stabbed himself in the neck - but there were rumors going around that he would reincarnate.