When was the Book of Revelation written?

[συνείδησις]

WHen John wrote that those events were soon to take place, it does not require any interpretation of that word "soon." "Soon" does not mean over 2000 years from today. And the word "soon" appears a fair number of times. For those who reject the internal information, the murkiness of "assumed interpretation" is their only refuge.

Just goes to show how difficult Revelation is to decipher. That "soon" could mean that things will happen very fast (quickly) once they start. That's my interpretation.

 

[συνείδησις]

The internal evidence for Rev predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding persecution fits perfectly with the history.

There is so much in Revelation that doesn't match the destruction of Jerusalem at all. That is my main beef against a preterist interpretation of it.

 

[David Kent]

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

Doesn't actually say he was 40 or 50. I can't actually check it as I am downsizing at present and my grandson took most of my library a year ago, including against the heresies.

 

[David Kent]

duplicated

 

[AFrazier]

Would you like to give the reference in Irenaeus so we can look it up.?
*

Irenaeus claimed that Jesus was nearly fifty, (Iren. Adv. Haer. 2.22.5-6).

But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” (John 8:56, 57) Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

 

[David Kent]

Irenaeus claimed that Jesus was nearly fifty, (Iren. Adv. Haer. 3.21.3).

I have just answered that.
If I was still working in London I would go and look it up in the Evangelical Library, but I don't get up to the Smoke these days.

 

[συνείδησις]

Doesn't actually say he was 40 or 50. I can't actually check it as I am downsizing at present and my grandson took most of my library a year ago, including against the heresies.

From this Irenaeus didn't say that at all

Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify

 

[AFrazier]

I have never read such a mish-mash. Tertulian and other early church writers knew that the ten horns were future in their day, they would overthrow the empire,(which they later did) and would be followed by antichrist who they mistakenly thought would be an individual, ruling 3½ years. Then would come the end of all things.
Tertulian also taught that the temple in Rev referred to the church and the 144,000 were Christian virgins.

You are well out on the ten horns as at John's time they had not received their kingdom.

• Revelation 17: 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
• 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

The little horn came out of the ten horns so must also have been future.

• Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

The seven heads were also seven mountains and seven kings. That represented the whole Roman economy until it was overthrown by ten gothic kingdoms in the 5th Century. In the above scripture we are told what time it referred to, the time when the seven heads were ruling. In the next chapter we are told that it is after the fall of the empire when the seven horns were ruling.

• Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Okay, calling my answer "mish-mash" is unnecessary. Sounds like you are a man of age. You should know better than to insult by now. Objective discussion is facts and rebuttal. We don't have to agree. But I don't expect my reading and research to be snubbed any more than you do.

 

[klutedavid]

It's not symbolic language only if you choose to not interpret it as such. I see it it as entirely symbolic.

Entirely symbolic?

Your saying that the underlying truth that the simple symbols represent, is not really visible to the reader.

Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Not too hard to see through that faint symbol, I wonder which city John is referring to?

 

[David Kent]

• Daniel 7: 25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Christians would be given into the hand of the little hon for that time. Same as the similar periods in Revelation.

 

[David Kent]

Entirely symbolic?

Your saying that the underlying truth that the simple symbols represent, is not really visible to the reader.

Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Not too hard to see through that faint symbol, I wonder which city John is referring to?

Rome of Course

The Megatropolis could not be Jerusalem. it was what the Greeks called Rome. Jesus was crucified out side the walls of Jerusalem, but in the greater city of Rome. The Jews did not have the power to crucify Jesus, only the Roman governor did. He still is in the Roman mass.

 

[συνείδησις]

I have just answered that.
If I was still working in London I would go and look it up in the Evangelical Library, but I don't get up to the Smoke these days.

It's all over the internet.

 

[David Kent]

duplicated sorry my internet seems to drop after every post then it posts twice.

 

[David Kent]

It's all over the internet.

Yes but the internet is not always accurate, very often deliberately distorted.

 

[David Kent]

duplicated

 

[AFrazier]

There is so much in Revelation that doesn't match the destruction of Jerusalem at all. That is my main beef against a preterist interpretation of it.

It has been my experience that the more familiar you are with the related histories and the biblical interpretations of the Revelation, the more it does match the destruction of Jerusalem. One could be inclined, for example, to think that a comet is going to crash into the earth because Revelation 8:8 says that a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea. Or, one can interpret Revelation 8:8 in light of Jeremiah 51:25 and Daniel 9:16 and conclude that the burning mountain is Jerusalem.

Or when the Revelation says that three unclean spirits like frogs came forth, and the city was divided into three parts as great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to taste his wrath, you might conclude ... whatever it is that futurists believe concerning this, or you can interpret this biblically and historically as the three men who became a plague to the people of Jerusalem and divided the city internally into three factions during the siege of Titus, per Josephus, Wars 5.2, 21-26.

There are plenty of parallels. These are just two to give an example that the Revelation isn't as far from the actual destruction of Jerusalem as one might think. I personally see the similarities so clearly, I'm surprised that others cannot.

 

[AFrazier]

I have just answered that.
If I was still working in London I would go and look it up in the Evangelical Library, but I don't get up to the Smoke these days.

No need to look it up. I quoted it for you.

Edit: And my quote didn't come from the internet. I have the books.

 

[klutedavid]

Rome of Course

The Megatropolis could not be Jerusalem. it was what the Greeks called Rome. Jesus was crucified out side the walls of Jerusalem, but in the greater city of Rome. The Jews did not have the power to crucify Jesus, only the Roman governor did. He still is in the Roman mass.

Regardless Kent, the symbols are faint symbols that do not even mask the subject. The seven churches mentioned could easily see what John was saying.

 

[claninja]

Doesn't actually say he was 40 or 50. I can't actually check it as I am downsizing at present and my grandson took most of my library a year ago, including against the heresies.

According to Irenaeus, what did Jesus possess?


but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

Even worse. The man thought Jesus was possessing old age. He even said the the Gospels and "all" the elders testify of. Thanks for the quote. Worse that was reported. Iraneaus thought Jesus was an old man and thought the Gospels said so along with the elders. This is not a difficult piece of information to obtain, his age when he ministered, and yet the guy missed it by a mile. Puts all the rest that he wrote about the history of the church in a questionable light. And the fact that he did not know the Gospels makes it worse. He is a very unreliable source for historical information for sure.