When was the Book of Revelation written?

[mark kennedy]

Persecution or wrath?

This is possibly describing the destruction of Jerusalem and way before Revelations is even written.

The word for tribulation is most often translated persecution and in Revelations persecution includes the Jews.

 

[klutedavid]

The word for tribulation is most often translated persecution and in Revelations persecution includes the Jews.

On an early date of Revelations, i.e., late sixties?

Revelations 2
1 To the angel of the church in Ephesus write...

I cannot even grasp a date for the writing of Revelations being before AD 70.

Timothy and Paul were heavily involved in the church at Ephesus during the sixties. Why would John write a letter and refer to the church at Ephesus in the sixties, and say the following?

4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.

That is not even feasible given that Timothy was still alive well after AD 70.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Please state whether you believe Revelation was written either post 70 AD or Pre 70 AD.

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

Don't know when it was written but sure as heck know when John received the vision from heaven.

Revelation . 17:9 And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he coms, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast

So during the reign of the 6th Roman emperor. That would put it right around the beginning of the war in Judea. Also keep in mind John was told to write the vision. I doubt he lingered around and got to it 30 years later.

End Time Prophecy

 

[klutedavid]

Don't know when it was written but sure as heck know when John received the vision from heaven.

Revelation . 17:9 And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he coms, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast

So during the reign of the 6th Roman emperor. That would put it right around the beginning of the war in Judea. Also keep in mind John was told to write the vision. I doubt he lingered around and got to it 30 years later.

End Time Prophecy

You mentioned the sixth king?

12 And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast...

These kings have no kingdom to rule at the time, of the writing of the book of Revelations. I do not understand what you wrote?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

You mentioned the sixth king?

12 And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast...

These kings have no kingdom to rule at the time, of the writing of the book of Revelations. I do not understand what you wrote?

What God is telling John is that the ten kings of the fourth empire of Daniel 7 are out beyond the first 7. The four empires as represented in this beast of Revelation are already named in the book of Daniel. No need for any speculation. No doubt John and others were wondering if the events prophesied about Judea that they see unfolding are heralding the age of promise that was to come at the end of the Roman Empire. God was showing him the ten emperors in Daniel 7 were still future.

 

[klutedavid]

What God is telling John is that the ten kings of the fourth empire of Daniel 7 are out beyond the first 7. The four empires as represented in this beast of Revelation are already named in the book of Daniel. No need for any speculation. No doubt John and others were wondering if the events prophesied about Judea that they see unfolding are heralding the age of promise that was to come at the end of the Roman Empire. God was showing him the ten emperors in Daniel 7 were still future.

So obviously you have the six Roman emperors all figured out.

There seems to be endless debate on that specific interpretation.

Care to take a shot at the title and list the emperors?

 

[Ron Gurley]

author names himself in the text as "John", but his precise identity remains a point of academic debate. Second-century Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Melitothe bishop of Sardis, and Clement of Alexandria and the author of the Muratorian fragmentidentify John the Apostle as the "John" of Revelation.[1] Modern scholarship generally takes a different view,[2] and many consider that nothing can be known about the author except that he was a Christian prophet.[3] Some modern scholars characterise Revelation's author as a putative figure whom they call "John of Patmos". The bulk of traditional sources date the book to the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81–96), and the evidence tends to confirm this.[4]

John the Elder wrote the Gospel of John + letters from Ephesus ~ 80 AD

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

So obviously you have the six Roman emperors all figured out.

There seems to be endless debate on that specific interpretation.

Care to take a shot at the title and list the emperors?

Have all that in the link of my first post. Not just the seven though. Also the ten and the infamous eleventh horn of Daniel chapter 7.

 

[klutedavid]

Have all that in the link of my first post. Not just the seven though. Also the ten and the infamous eleventh horn of Daniel chapter 7.

Had trouble locating the seven kings in that gigantic website.

Did not seem to have too much to say about the identity of the kings of Revelations in chapter seventeen?

I was looking for the list of the emperors.

 

[David Kent]

Had trouble locating the seven kings in that gigantic website.

Did not seem to have too much to say about the identity of the kings of Revelations in chapter seventeen?

I was looking for the list of the emperors.

The four kings in Daniel 2 were not individual kings but dynasties.
There were a number of dynasties in the Roman state. they are, as I remember them:
1. Kings
2. 1st Republic
3. 2nd Republic
4. Triumverate
5. Dictatorship.
6. Emperors, That which is
7. Christian Emperors
The 10 kings who replaced Roman rule. The ten tribes that overthrew the empire
Heruli
Seuvi
Burgundians
Huns
Ostrogoths
Visigogths
Vandals
Lombards
Franks
Saxons
They gave power to the eighth

8. Different from all the others, but of them. The Papacy.

The papacy overthrew 3 of the former honrs,
The Heruli under Odacer in AD 393
The Vandals in AD 534
The Ostrogoths in 553,
Thus setting up the Papal States which lasted till AD 1870 when Victor Emanuel became King of Italy. The papacy had no state in Rome from that time till 1926 when Mussolini gave him Vatican city.

 

[David Kent]

"The historic interpretation of the Apocalypse which rests on this twofold foundation has been slowly developed under the influence of the divine action in Providence; it has changed in details with the changing currents of Providence; it has grown with the growth of the knowledge of the plans of Providence; it has been confirmed and sealed by the whole course of Providence. It is no vain, or puerile, or presumptuous speculation. It is a reverent submission to the very words of God, and a reverent recognition of His acts. God has spoken; He has given an explanation of the central and commanding vision of that prophecy; and God has acted; He has fulfilled its predictions. In pointing to the words and deeds of God we act as His witnesses. What hath God said? What hath He done? These are the questions.YWe are wearied with vain speculations as to the meaning of prophecy which have no other foundation than the assertions of men. We are wearied with speculations as to imaginary future fulfilments of prophecies which have been plainly accomplished before our eyes in the past; prophecies on whose accomplishment in the events of Christian history the structure of the great Reformation of the sixteenth century was built; on the fact of whose accomplishment in their days the confessors stood, and the martyrs suffered. Alas! the speculations of men have clouded these facts and brought into disrepute the Holy Word of God. Even good men have been led to neglect the voice of divine prophecy, and to refuse its lamp to light their steps, through the follies of its exponents. Is it not time that the last prophetic book in the Word of God, a book bearing the seal of the signature of the name of "JESUS" should be lifted up from dust of neglect, and set upon a candlestick in the midst of the house, to shed its clear light and cheering beams on all around? Let the reverent believer who “trembles" at God's word, the patient student who has searched the records of the past, the uncompromising witness who fears not the faces of men, lift up that fallen lamp from the soil on which men have cast it, and place it where Copernicus placed the sun, as a kingly light enthroned in the centre of its system."

Henry Grattan Guinness, History Unveiling Prophecy 1906
​

You can download it here.
http://www.historicism.com/Guinness/Unveiling/unveiling.pdf

 

[claninja]

We can see Irenaeus speaking in circa 180 AD as the prophecies of Revelation yet future. Second we see him place the date of Revelation written during the reign of Domitian.

Domitian (/dəˈmɪʃən, -iən/; Latin: Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus Augustus; 24 October 51 – 18 September 96 AD) was Roman emperor from 81 to 96. ... After the death of his brother, Domitian was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard. His 15-year reign was the longest since that of Tiberius..
Therefore, the date range can be a early as 81AD and as late as 96AD.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of the apostle John. That lends credence to Irenaeaus' claim and understanding of Revelation.

Another historic data point to consider is Revelation was considered part of the early church antilegomena. Or the disputed NT books. Reason usually given is the later date (late 1st century AD) and thus not known universally by the church:

The problem, from what I have read, with Irenaeus is 3 fold:
1.) His reliability as a historian
a.) he records Jesus lived to between 40 and fifty years of age based on what he was taught.
b.) confuses James the apostle with James the brother of Jesus.
2.)The greek word 'was seen' could mean 'it' was seen or 'he' was seen. And typically, not always, is that when Iraneaus uses 'for' it involves people and not things.
"For that (john or vision) was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."
3.) Most church fathers base their belief on a domitian date because of this quote.

-Clement reports that the teachings of the apostles were until nero
-Clement also reports that John returned from patmos after the death of the tyrant. Nero was commonly called a tyrant. I can't say I have found the same of Domitian.
-tertullian reports that peter endured a passion like Jesus, Paul was beheaded, and John was boiled in oil before being exiled to patmos.
-It seems only Eusebius states that Domitian persecuted Christians and Jews. There appears to be no other sources to confirm this. While there are roman and church historians that confirm the persecution of Christians and Jews by Nero.
-Andreas of cappadocia (6th century) states stand for a Domitian date, but states that many of his contemporaries prefer a neronic date.
-Syriac version of Revelation begins with a statement saying John was exiled by Nero


-All this shows is that the external evidence is not conclusive. This has been debated for over 1000 years.

Considering he was writing Against Heresies in 180 AD, there would be older copies of Revelation. If you are focusing on the 'ancient' word, remember he is writing in Greek. Also, consider what would make Revelation 'ancient' if there was only a 20 year difference. Meaning it being written in 90AD as opposed to 70AD, to quote a politician "what difference does it make?"

So in one sentence, it (the vision) was seen by John not long ago, almost in irenaeus' time, but in another sentence there are ancient copies of revelation? That doesn't really make sense.

For Revelation to be prophecy about 70 AD, it means it would have been written latest by 60 AD. That's why Hank Hanegraff has Revelation penned in 54 AD. About the time of 1 Corinthians.

While I disagree with Epiphanius (315-403), he states that John was banished under Claudius Caeser. Should we take this as truth without weighing the other evidence

Within the context of what they knew of the world at the time? I would say to them that was the whole world. Within the context of the Greco-Roman world and what transpires in Revelation? Highly debatable as the events of 70 AD were local events not even affecting the rest of the empire.

The events of 70ad were the days of vengeance, explicitly directed at the those in matthew 23.

Or how about Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

which paul states has fulfilled

colossians 1:23 indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creationd under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Jerusalem were already in motion in 68 AD. That allowed less than 24 months to deliver the letters and have them circulate back to Judea where the supposed fulfilled prophecies would occur. This would then put Revelation as more a 'forecast' of events already bubbling up. We don't need Revelation to give prophetic utterances of the destruction of Jerusalem. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 21 already does a great job of that.

So revelation is something new that has never been revealed before? It has no references to the OT or other books in NT?

Thanks for the list! A lot of 19th century Tubingen school names on the list. Do you have the dates they claim or do I have to do visit all the books? For example, the list I provided went to a link which listed the date range and scholars:

unfortunately no, you will have to look up the dates if you want specifics. Otherwise note they are pre-70ad.

Perhaps Hegesippus via Eusebius as well:

The first person to describe the date Revelation was written in AD 95 is a man named Hegesippus who lived AD 120-190. While there is a limited number of writings that exist today from Hegesippus, Eusebius Pamphili of Caesaria (who lived AD 300-340) heavily relied on Hegesippus’ material when writing his Ecclesiastical History (Andrew James Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Supplements to Viligiae christianae, ed. J. Van Oort, J. Den Boeft, W. L. Petersen, et al., vol. 67 [Leiden: Brill: 2003], 1-36). In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

he mentions a written source that he uses to state that John the apostle was banished to the island of Patmos under the reign of Domitian. The written source that Eusebius uses is most likely Hegesippus’ work written sometime in the second century (Hitchcock, “Domitianic Date of Revelation,” 11-16).

So not fully known

More on that from an early source in Eusebius:

Thank you for this!

 

[Ronald]

Please state whether you believe Revelation was written either post 70 AD or Pre 70 AD.

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

About 95 A.D.
1. A letter written around180 A.D. by Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple and successor of John), states that pronouncing the name of the Antichrist would be incurring a risk and if it were necessary at the time it was written, it would have been revealed by Christ. They did not know the name of the Antichrist. If it was Nero in their past, they would have stated it. Nero was an antichrist, no doubt, but not the end times antichrist spoken about in this book. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitians's reign.
2. Smyrna was not mentioned anywhere else in scripture suggesting that I was a newer church which was started later in the 1st century. Polycarp was said to be the Bishop of Smyrna and born around A.D.70 If he was a disciple and successor of John, then this church began decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. Polycarp also said that no church in Smyrna existed in A.D. 67.
3. If John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70, it would overlap Paul's letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus at the time. The problems Jesus points out in Revelation concerning Ephesus and Laodicea are not evident in Paul's letters. John probably did not move to Ephesus until after Paul and Peter were martyred.
4. Nero murdered Christians and their prophets including Paul and Peter. That was his style. He would have also killed John if he was around. But John became banished to Patmos - which was Domitian's style of punishment.

The Preterist view critically hangs on an early date of Revelation being written prior to 70 A.D., because if it wasn't, their whole view falls apart.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

About 95 A.D.
1. A letter written around180 A.D. by Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple and successor of John), states that pronouncing the name of the Antichrist would be incurring a risk and if it were necessary at the time it was written, it would have been revealed by Christ. They did not know the name of the Antichrist. If it was Nero in their past, they would have stated it. Nero was an antichrist, no doubt, but not the end times antichrist spoken about in this book. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitians's reign.
2. Smyrna was not mentioned anywhere else in scripture suggesting that I was a newer church which was started later in the 1st century. Polycarp was said to be the Bishop of Smyrna and born around A.D.70 If he was a disciple and successor of John, then this church began decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. Polycarp also said that no church in Smyrna existed in A.D. 67.
3. If John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70, it would overlap Paul's letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus at the time. The problems Jesus points out in Revelation concerning Ephesus and Laodicea are not evident in Paul's letters. John probably did not move to Ephesus until after Paul and Peter were martyred.
4. Nero murdered Christians and their prophets including Paul and Peter. That was his style. He would have also killed John if he was around. But John became banished to Patmos - which was Domitian's style of punishment.

The Preterist view critically hangs on an early date of Revelation being written prior to 70 A.D., because if it wasn't, their whole view falls apart.

Revelation says when when John received the vision from heaven. No need to speculate on that with the incomplete knoweldge and records of extra Biblical figures.

Revelation . 17:9 And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he coms, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast

So during the reign of the 6th Roman emperor. That would put it right around the beginning of the war in Judea. Also keep in mind John was told to write the vision. I doubt he lingered around and got to it 30 years later.

As far as the erroneous preterist view is concerned
What God is telling John about ten kings of the fourth empire of Daniel 7 is they are out beyond the first 7. The four empires as represented in this beast of Revelation are already named in the book of Daniel. No need for any speculation. No doubt John and others were wondering if the events prophesied about Judea that they see unfolding are heralding the age of promise that was to come at the end of the Roman Empire. God was showing him the ten emperors in Daniel 7 were still future and that the age of promise was not coming any time soon.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The four kings in Daniel 2 were not individual kings but dynasties.
There were a number of dynasties in the Roman state. they are, as I remember them:
1. Kings
2. 1st Republic
3. 2nd Republic
4. Triumverate
5. Dictatorship.
6. Emperors, That which is
7. Christian Emperors
The 10 kings who replaced Roman rule. The ten tribes that overthrew the empire
Heruli
Seuvi
Burgundians
Huns
Ostrogoths
Visigogths
Vandals
Lombards
Franks
Saxons
They gave power to the eighth

8. Different from all the others, but of them. The Papacy.

The papacy overthrew 3 of the former honrs,
The Heruli under Odacer in AD 393
The Vandals in AD 534
The Ostrogoths in 553,
Thus setting up the Papal States which lasted till AD 1870 when Victor Emanuel became King of Italy. The papacy had no state in Rome from that time till 1926 when Mussolini gave him Vatican city.

I realize people worked very hard to try to figure out what all that means. Especially during the persecutions of the reformation. The fact of the matter is all these prophecies are in regard to the four empires named in scripture and therefore to us looking back, dated by scripture. It is not about the papacy which was basically started as the imperial church of the Roman Empire. It is about the Roman Empire itself. The prophecies are about the time period of the four gentile empires and what would occur in the world when that era ended. Many simply do not know that the capitol of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople in 333 AD. The empire did not end until Constantinople was conquered by the Turks and the last Roman emperor killed. If you want a prophecy about the papacy look at the prophecy about the Roman Empire splitting into and eastern and Western branch. The animal that looked like a lamb with two horns that spoke like a dragon. The two horns are the two branches and the lamb illustrates the empires claims of Christianity. The speaking like a dragon is the fact that the power and doctrine behind the empire were of Satan.

 

[claninja]

About 95 A.D.
1. A letter written around180 A.D. by Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple and successor of John), states that pronouncing the name of the Antichrist would be incurring a risk and if it were necessary at the time it was written, it would have been revealed by Christ. They did not know the name of the Antichrist. If it was Nero in their past, they would have stated it. Nero was an antichrist, no doubt, but not the end times antichrist spoken about in this book. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitians's reign.
2. Smyrna was not mentioned anywhere else in scripture suggesting that I was a newer church which was started later in the 1st century. Polycarp was said to be the Bishop of Smyrna and born around A.D.70 If he was a disciple and successor of John, then this church began decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. Polycarp also said that no church in Smyrna existed in A.D. 67.
3. If John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70, it would overlap Paul's letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus at the time. The problems Jesus points out in Revelation concerning Ephesus and Laodicea are not evident in Paul's letters. John probably did not move to Ephesus until after Paul and Peter were martyred.
4. Nero murdered Christians and their prophets including Paul and Peter. That was his style. He would have also killed John if he was around. But John became banished to Patmos - which was Domitian's style of punishment.

The Preterist view critically hangs on an early date of Revelation being written prior to 70 A.D., because if it wasn't, their whole view falls apart.

1st thank you for the response and providing evidence in a very well written way to support you view.
Let's look at each piece

1. A letter written around180 A.D. by Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple and successor of John), states that pronouncing the name of the Antichrist would be incurring a risk and if it were necessary at the time it was written, it would have been revealed by Christ. They did not know the name of the Antichrist. If it was Nero in their past, they would have stated it. Nero was an antichrist, no doubt, but not the end times antichrist spoken about in this book. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitians's reign.

1. Irenaeus
-Irenaeus admits that he was a boy when he learned from Polycarp he kept no written record:

"For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp ... For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse ... also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance ... I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind" (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, II)."

-Iranaeus has some other problems with his memory of learning things, for he also believed Jesus lived to be an old man:

"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)"

-According to pliny the elder, Nero was also referred to as Domitius Nero. Nero's actual name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So it is possible, considering his 'memory', that he misunderstood what he had learned as a boy.

2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
-Clement of Alexandria never actually mentions Domitian by name. He only mentions a 'tyrant'

'And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit" (Clement of Alexandria - Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved, Chapter 42)'

-Clement of Alexandria also believed that the teachings of the apostles ended with Nero:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero" (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 7, Chapter 17).

-Clement of Alexandria also believed Nero's reign occurred during Daniels 70th week

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away ..." (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, Chapter 21). Later in this same chapter, Clement wrote, "... and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

-so most likely the tyrant that Clement mentions is Nero

3. Eusebius
Eusebius gets his information from Irenaeus.

4. Origen
**Not familiar with the works of origen on the timing of Revelation

5. Papias (60-130 ad)
Papias wrote "Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord", of which only fragments remain. In one of the fragments, Papias mentions that John was killed around the same time as James the brother of Jesus. We know James was killed around 62 AD.

This statement conflicts with other early church fathers who stated john lived a long life after returning from patmos.

5. Epiphianus
States john was banished under Caesar Claudius.

Smyrna was not mentioned anywhere else in scripture suggesting that I was a newer church which was started later in the 1st century. Polycarp was said to be the Bishop of Smyrna and born around A.D.70 If he was a disciple and successor of John, then this church began decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. Polycarp also said that no church in Smyrna existed in A.D. 67.

Can you provide the excerpt where Polycarp states no church in Smyrna existed in 67AD? I cannot seem to find this.

Here is the quote I found:


But I have not found any such thing in you


[i.e., the church at Philippi], neither have heard thereof, among whom the blessed Paul

labored, who were his letters in the beginning. For he boasted of you in all those

churches which alone at that time knew God; for we knew him not as yet" [Polycarp,

Letter to the Philippians 11:3]. Polycarp (c. AD 69-155),

This does not explicitly state that there is no church in Smyrna before 70ad. All this could mean is that the smyrneans did not know God at the time Paul was boasting, which would have been around 53-58 AD

If John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70, it would overlap Paul's letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus at the time. The problems Jesus points out in Revelation concerning Ephesus and Laodicea are not evident in Paul's letters. John probably did not move to Ephesus until after Paul and Peter were martyred.

Just because Paul does not address the issues, as revelation does, doesn't mean those things weren't happening. Are all churches perfect? Definitely no.

Additionally:

Muratorian Canon (170 ad)
the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. "

Nero murdered Christians and their prophets including Paul and Peter. That was his style. He would have also killed John if he was around. But John became banished to Patmos - which was Domitian's style of punishment.

Tertullian appears to state that Peter, Paul and John were all persecuted around the same time. This could suggest the same persecutor.

“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

The Preterist view critically hangs on an early date of Revelation being written prior to 70 A.D., because if it wasn't, their whole view falls apart.

I agree. Also, Not only do many futurists believe it was written after 70ad, but also opponents of Christianity.

 

[claninja]

On an early date of Revelations, i.e., late sixties?

Revelations 2
1 To the angel of the church in Ephesus write...

I cannot even grasp a date for the writing of Revelations being before AD 70.

Timothy and Paul were heavily involved in the church at Ephesus during the sixties. Why would John write a letter and refer to the church at Ephesus in the sixties, and say the following?

4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.

That is not even feasible given that Timothy was still alive well after AD 70.

So the church in Ephesus was perfect, with no sinners in it, as long as timothy was alive?
I disagree, any church can have problem within days, weeks, months, even a few years after it starts.

 

[David Kent]

I realize people worked very hard to try to figure out what all that means. Especially during the persecutions of the reformation. The fact of the matter is all these prophecies are in regard to the four empires named in scripture and therefore to us looking back, dated by scripture. It is not about the papacy which was basically started as the imperial church of the Roman Empire. It is about the Roman Empire itself. The prophecies are about the time period of the four gentile empires and what would occur in the world when that era ended. Many simply do not know that the capitol of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople in 333 AD. The empire did not end until Constantinople was conquered by the Turks and the last Roman emperor killed. If you want a prophecy about the papacy look at the prophecy about the Roman Empire splitting into and eastern and Western branch. The animal that looked like a lamb with two horns that spoke like a dragon. The two horns are the two branches and the lamb illustrates the empires claims of Christianity. The speaking like a dragon is the fact that the power and doctrine behind the empire were of Satan.

The papacy is the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Roman emperors were considered divine, the Pope is considered divine. The Emperors called themselves PONT MAX, the Popes call themselves PONT MAX. The emperors murdered thousand of Christians the Popes have murdered millions.
The Popes call themselves Vicar of Christ, which means in place of Christ or Vice Christ. Antichrist means the same in Greek.

 

[seventysevens]

So the church in Ephesus was perfect, with no sinners in it, as long as timothy was alive?
I disagree, any church can have problem within days, weeks, months, even a few years after it starts.

4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.

turning away from the Lord is the sin in reference , I did not see any reference to saying that the "church in Ephesus was perfect, with no sinners in it, as long as timothy was alive?"

 

[claninja]

4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.

turning away from the Lord is the sin in reference , I did not see any reference to saying that the "church in Ephesus was perfect, with no sinners in it, as long as timothy was alive?"

They turned away from the Lord?

Revelation 2:3 know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary


They were being persecuted for Name of God and enduring, but they were no longer doing the works in love that had originally done.

Revelation 2:4-5
I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first 5Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first