Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[Gundy22]

Some standing here who will not taste of death

There is the new thread I just started for THERE BE SOME STANDING HERE

I will put some of this thread's comments in it

I wanted to address something about James and John of Zebedee being AS YOUNG as someone posted that they were. I do not see them as pre-teens - they are not orphans - their mother is seen asking Jesus to give them special seats of power...

 

[Gundy22]

Mat 4:21

And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.

James and John were not orphans.
James was one of the early martyrs.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Thank you for the new thread! Very kind of you. I posted there too cause you got me to thinking

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

What is your point about James and John?

 

[wonderkins]

However, even if we are to take Irenaeus words as accurate, his words are still ambiguous for this is what he wrote: “If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that (it or he) was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Hey freedm. Can you point me to the source of that quote? I've never read irenaeus before. That would be interesting.

I sit somewhere between amil and postmill. Any further reading would be useful. The dating of revelation seems like a big deal to me.

Thanks.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Wonderkins what is your view of the dating of Revelation?

 

[Lost4words]

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

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

Like i said, i believe in Partial Preterism

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Lost4words, what parts of Revelation have in your view already been fulfilled?

 

[Freedm]

No.

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

The whole book?

 

[Freedm]

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

Wow. I just clearly quoted exactly what you said and asked for confirmation that you meant what I thought you meant. That would've been the time for you to clarify if I misunderstood.

 

[Freedm]

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

And did John see death?

 

[Freedm]

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

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

 

[Freedm]

How many times have heaven and earth passed away?

How many temples have been destroyed?

 

[Freedm]

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.

No, it's not smart and true because that would require that the Bible was written in a way that we can not understand. Not smart. Not true.

 

[Freedm]

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.

When Jesus said "generation", he was speaking of the next 40 years. It matters not which apostles or Romans died before 70 AD.

 

[Freedm]

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.

Why don't you explain to us which generation Jesus was talking about.

 

[Freedm]

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.

Corinthians was written prior to 70 AD so not sure what your point is there.

People are still arguing over if Jesus is God. What people believe or don't believe has no bearing on whether or not the prophecies have been fulfilled.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Wow. I just clearly quoted exactly what you said and asked for confirmation that you meant what I thought you meant. That would've been the time for you to clarify if I misunderstood.

That is not true, and you know it. When did I say "we can't possibly understand because the Bible is written from God's perspective"?

 

[Freedm]

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?

I believe the vast majority of the book has been fulfilled. Some things I'm not sure about.

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;

What's to interpret?

 

[sovereigngrace]

No, it's not smart and true because that would require that the Bible was written in a way that we can not understand. Not smart. Not true.

Just because it cuts across Preterism doesn't mean the rest of us cannot understand it. You are forced your mistaken view upon Scripture.