Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[Jeffwhosoever]

Revelation was not intended to introduce a large deposit of new revelation that was previously unknown to the other sacred writers.

Then why is the book named Revelation and what purpose does it serve if NOT to reveal new revelation? Read the beginning and end of this book. How do you know what the Lord intended in presenting this to the Apostle John?

Revelation 1:1-3:
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Revelation 22:6-21:
6 The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”

7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.”

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”

10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. 11 Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.”

Epilogue: Invitation and Warning
12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

 

[Lost4words]

Paul was already dead. His generation over.

'This generation' meant, the generation of the Apostles and desciples etc. That generation would see 70AD and the fall of Jerusalem

 

[Lost4words]

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?

I go along with Partial Preterism myself my friend.

 

[Christian Gedge]

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).

You urge us to consider Revelation 11’s description of the temple “still standing” as evidence that the book was written before 70 AD. To my question you add that the “times of the Gentiles” were a literal 42 months from 66 AD to 70 AD; but the Jewish Zealots were figurative of Gentile tramplers because the Romans could not be fitted to the literal 42 months.

So, I asked who you thought the “2 witnesses” were - who prophesied at the same time as the Gentiles trampled? You mused between a figurative "law and prophets" or two literal men, “Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamaliel.”

Hey Freedm, I can’t take your request to consider Revelation 11 as proof of early authorship unless you present a consistently literal and/or consistently symbolic interpretation of that chapter! I’m not saying that a final outcome is not literal, but toggling between literal and figurative in every second description is not credible to me.

(Footnote: Im Amil who believes some prophecy fulfills through the church age)

 

[Christian Gedge]

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.

Depends how partial your partialness is.

 

[Freedm]

Hey Freedm, I can’t take your request to consider Revelation 11 as proof of early authorship unless you present a consistently literal and/or consistently symbolic interpretation of that chapter! I’m not saying that a final outcome is not literal, but toggling between literal and figurative in every second description is not credible to me.

So you're saying I have to either believe everything to be literal or everything to be symbolic? Who in their right mind studies scripture that way? Some things are literal and some are symbolic, but of course, you and I both know you were never going to accept my position or even my arguments for my position. You were just fishing for a reason to disagree.

 

[Freedm]

You urge us to consider Revelation 11’s description of the temple “still standing” as evidence that the book was written before 70 AD. To my question you add that the “times of the Gentiles” were a literal 42 months from 66 AD to 70 AD; but the Jewish Zealots were figurative of Gentile tramplers because the Romans could not be fitted to the literal 42 months.

Not sure how you're seeing the zealots as figurative. They were a real people who literally trampled on the city. I think you're trying too hard.

 

[Freedm]

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?

Yes.

 

[Freedm]

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.

Good point. It's possible that the temple spoken of in Rev 11 is not the same temple that was on earth, but even if that's the case, there is plenty of other evidence in Revelation and the gospels to support preterism.

 

[Freedm]

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"?

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.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Not sure how you're seeing the zealots as figurative. They were a real people who literally trampled on the city. I think you're trying too hard.

I never said zealots were not real people. But they were Jewish and you apply a figurative (and convoluted) interpretation when you call them 'Gentiles'.

See your post 32

 

[Christian Gedge]

So you're saying I have to either believe everything to be literal or everything to be symbolic? Who in their right mind studies scripture that way? Some things are literal and some are symbolic, but of course, you and I both know you were never going to accept my position or even my arguments for my position. You were just fishing for a reason to disagree.

I never said everything in scripture had to be either literal or symbolic. I said toggling between literal and figurative in every second description is not credible. That is what you seem to be doing every few paragraphs of Rev. chapter 11.

 

[Freedm]

I never said everything in scripture had to be either literal or symbolic. I said toggling between literal and figurative in every second description is not credible. That is what you seem to be doing every few paragraphs of Rev. chapter 11.

That's not what I'm doing.

 

[Timtofly]

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?

No.

It was written to 7 churches in Turkey. Not relatable to those living in Jerusalem, nor about those still under a Temple economy.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

John was the only one who Jesus indicated would not see death, even if Revelation is still future.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

John was the only one who Jesus indicated would not see death, even if Revelation is still future.

John's still alive in 2021? Or did you mean John would still be alive to see the Lord in heaven while he was on Patmos?

 

[Gundy22]

"There be SOME standing here who will not see death"

so John aint the only one

I think Stephen was one who SAW Jesus standing at right hand of God right before he tasted death

 

[Timtofly]

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.

How many times have heaven and earth passed away?

 

[Gundy22]

Mat 16:28

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Luk 9:27

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

 

[sovereigngrace]

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.

You misrepresnted what I said, put it in quotes and then attacked it. That is wrong and unacceptable. Obviously you couldn't rebut what I said.