Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[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.

Arguing that "soon" from God's eternal perspective is completely different from "soon" from man's earthly perspective is definately not not "foolish and cheap" but smart and true.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

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.

John 21:20-23
20 Peter turned around and *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them—the one who also had leaned back on His chest at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who is betraying You?” 21 So Peter, upon seeing him, *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this account went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

Mark and Luke might say "some" but John says "him". One. Paul. One and some can both apply to John only.

 

[Timtofly]

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

Paul was younger than the disciples and did not see the destruction. He was an apostle. He died before 70AD. Jesus was talking about the generation before Paul's. Jesus would have been 73 years old. If that generation died at 60, they were all dead. Even Pilate was dead. Rome could not even keep emperors around for a full generation.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Tim are you speaking of the Olivet discourse when you say Jesus was talking about the generation before Paul's? Can you cite the Scripture?

Interesting that your avatar is the COVID virus. Are you an MD or biologist? My son is in MD school and that looks like something he would pick!

 

[Timtofly]

Yes.

How are you going to prove early dates for Luke? Also if you are taking the word of scholars, they claim many revisions. Why would any revision not clarify that Jesus' words were about 70AD, and Jesus Himself returned and the events of 70AD fulfilled a lot of first century apocalyptic and prophetical Revelations? They were arguing over if Jesus was even God for 200 years. They voted on it and which ever group won that round of votes, that was the belief held till it was voted differently the next time. Would not God coming and changing reality have settled that issue? No one prior to 500 was confirming the Second Coming. The Corinthians thought they missed it, and Paul wrote to them and explained they had not missed it. No one confirmed Paul's prophetic writings had been fulfilled.

 

[Timtofly]

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?

Revelation 4 claims John was here as a witness to the Second Coming. Afterwards God sent John back to deliver the letters. He was brought to the Lord's Day by the Holy Spirit.

My avatar represents the first Seal being opened. The only army with a white body and crowns that can conquer the whole world and bring it to a stop.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Wow check this out: How to watch next week's rare "ring of fire" solar eclipse

 

[Timtofly]

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.

Even can be found in Mark 9:1. It comes right before Peter, James, and John see Jesus in full glory. The same glory as the full image of God, those who are in Christ will be restored to at the Second Coming. Those 3 saw a glimpse of the Second Coming body. John does not give an account of the Transfiguration. It is in John 21 were Peter ask Jesus if John is the one who will not die until the Second Coming.

Here is a twist. I think James and John were pre-teen when they became disciples. They were orphans and Jesus sort of adopted them into the group. Jesus and John had a father/son relationship. To make literal sense it was the teen crowd who listened to Jesus who would still be alive some 40 years later. James was martyred though. The only other explanation outside of the Bible would be that John did die in the vat of burning oil, but came out in an incorruptible resurrection body the same age, and he never aged again. That is why he was placed on Patmos, because the Emperor feared John after that. There are many accounts up to John dying, but I doubt he died, but was taken to heaven like Elijah. One account indicates John left for about 20 years and came back to a certain city and all had aged, but it seemed John had not. John as one of the 2 witnesses, will be allowed to die by the hand of Satan.

That is a different and unique death as well. It never claims the soul leaves and comes back. It says the breath of God enters the body and brings it back to life. No other Christians around to pray over them. God sends the Holy Spirit. Not even a new body, but the same body brought back to life. No change like Paul claims for those in dead corruptible flesh.

Other than the account of Stephen being stoned to death, the physical death is not portrayed much for those in the NT. I do not think all are martyred which would be physically painful, even though the Bible portrays NT death as being martyrs. Being martyred one physically tastes the sting of death, at least the physical pain and suffering. Those who die peacefully should not taste death at all. The soul leaves one body and is instantly in a new permanent incorruptible body. That is another way that many would see the Second Coming from Paradise without tasting death. Tasting death does not necessarily mean physically dying in the strict literal sense of dying. Physically dying was portrayed as going to sleep. Ironically passing in one's sleep is not tasting death. "Sleeping" in Abraham's bosom was also a thing of the past after the Cross. John the Baptist and Lazarus being the last two examples to go there and taste death in Abraham's bosom.

Many would not go to Abraham's bosom, who were standing there that day. They would not experience death the same way after the Cross as those before the Cross.

 

[Lost4words]

Paul was younger than the disciples and did not see the destruction. He was an apostle. He died before 70AD. Jesus was talking about the generation before Paul's. Jesus would have been 73 years old. If that generation died at 60, they were all dead. Even Pilate was dead. Rome could not even keep emperors around for a full generation.

Not everyone who followed Jesus, or had seen Jesus or had been blessed by Jesus's words died befor 70AD my friend.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

For you to interpret Rev 1:1-3 in that way would dictate that you must then believe that the entire book was fulfilled in a short amount of time after it was written. Is that what you believe?

How do you interpret this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

[Lost4words]

For you to interpret Rev 1:1-3 in that way would dictate that you must then believe that the entire book was fulfilled in a short amount of time after it was written. Is that what you believe?

How do you interpret this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Define 'hereafter'.

A week? A month, a year? 2,000,000 years?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

What exactly is the reason you quoted these verses? Do you know what they mean? Jesus was talking about His transfiguration there. There were some standing there (Peter, James and John) who witnessed His transfiguration and they saw Him in His glory and also saw Moses and Elijah. That was the sense in which they saw the kingdom of God at that time. They were given a foretaste of His future coming in glory.

Matthew 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. 17 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Further evidence to show that Jesus was talking about His transfiguration in Matthew 16:28 and Luke 9:27 can be seen here:

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Define 'hereafter'.

A week? A month, a year? 2,000,000 years?

To me, "hereafter" means from that time on until the end of time and the ushering in of the eternal new heavens and new earth. That fits the context of what is written about in the book of Revelation.

How do you define it?

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

 

[Lost4words]

To me, "hereafter" means from that time on until the end of time and the ushering in of the eternal new heavens and new earth. That fits the context of what is written about in the book of Revelation.

You mean, it fits 'Your' interpretation my friend.

I go along with what Jesus said in Revelation 1. As i posted above.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You mean, it fits 'Your' interpretation my friend.

Of course it does, silly. Why would I interpret it in such a way that contradicted how I interpret the rest of the book?

I go along with what Jesus said in Revelation 1. As i posted above.

Then you must think that everything written in the book is already fulfilled. Is that true?

 

[sovereigngrace]

You mean, it fits 'Your' interpretation my friend.

I go along with what Jesus said in Revelation 1. As i posted above.

It seems like it is you that is avoiding SJ. Answer his question.

 

[Gundy22]

I do not accept that "some of you standing here will live through the next six days" is the explanation for those that would live to see Jesus coming into His kingdom.

Some people downplay the Transfiguration and say "Oh, it was only a vision" - but SJ's interpretation overplays the Transfiguration, making it the be all and end all of things.

This quirky interpretation makes "some of you standing here" mean "everyone who doesn't die within the next six days".

 

[Gundy22]

In Luke - it is EIGHT days after the statement that the Transfiguration occurs.

I posted the two verses so that people can look at what is said in Commentaries about the "some standing here" statement.

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.


The Transfiguration
Luk 9:28

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

 

[Gundy22]

Some standing here shall not taste death - Mt 16(27-28).


"Several people reading this passage have assumed that Jesus was promising that some of those hearing His words at that time would still be alive to see Him coming back to inaugurate His kingdom on earth. It is quite possible that the disciples themselves thought that they would be able to witness Jesus’ return. But the disciples have died, and Jesus did not come back yet. Therefore this passage must be understood differently.



Perhaps v. 28 deals with the appearance of the kingdom, and not with Jesus’ second coming. If we look for an event within the lifetime of at least some who were present which could correspond to the coming of the kingdom, the following options have been suggested:



(1) Since in all three synoptic gospels this statement is followed by the transfiguration of Jesus, it has been argued that this is what was intended. But an event that was to happen in only six days is hardly compatible with the statement that some would live to see it.



(2) Others take this to refer to the resurrection or to Pentecost. Again the time interval (probably less than a year) seems too short to warrant the phrasing ‘some standing here who will not taste death.’



(3) Still others interpret this verse as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The problem is that the context does not encourage this interpretation. The preceding verse, v. 27, clearly refers to Jesus’ final coming for judgment. The transition from Jesus’ second coming to the fall of Jerusalem seems too sudden.

 

[Gundy22]

We are stealing thunder from John on Patmos - we are way off-topic - I will start another thread for this "some standing here who will not taste of death" topic.