Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is a good try Biblewriter...but the fact is many historians have questioned the 95 AD date. This is in no way as settled an issue as you think and wish to purport.

Please don't come with this "futurist could care less" idea because the first thing they yell is "Revelation was written in 95 AD".

Kenneth Gentry's book is yet to be refuted! This is a thorough and scholarly work and Gentry has updated the book since. This version is from 1986.

Kenneth Gentry "Before Jerusalem Fell"...this is a free .pdf book:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

Interesting post.
There is no shortage of biblical scholars seeing Revelation being written prior to ad 70.

The Early Date of Revelation[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] |[bless and do not curse] Study Archive

Apocalypse: Early Date Advocates​

ADVOCATES FOR THE EARLY DATE OF REVELATION (20TH-21ST CENTURIES)


Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction ; Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition, (1989)

ADVOCATES FOR THE EARLY DATE OF REVELATION

(PRIOR TO THE 20TH CENTURY)​

Philip Schaff(1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Encyclopedia 3:2036.)
"Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428.)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring of all ancient history." But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (p. 397-398)........



.

 

[ebedmelech]

The "gap" in Daniel 9 is not something that ws "invented" by didpensationalists. It was taught in the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day, whish was the last twekve chapters of "against Heresies," by Irenaeus, dated circa 186-188. It was also very clearly specified in the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture which has survived top the present day, which was a commentary on Daniel by Hyppolutus, dated circa 202-211.

But more to the point, it is contained in the text itself, which is why the early church taught it.

As to the date of Revelation, you are completely off base when you claim that we "have to hold to Domatian's reign to hold" our "eschatology together." To Futurism, the date of the Revelation is entirely immaterial. It could have been written at any time from shortly after the Lord Jesus returned to heaven to the day before John died, and it would make absolutely zero difference. But for Preterism to even survive, it is absolutely necessary to pretend that it was written before Jerusalem was destroyed. That is why Preterists so desperately cling to the pretension that it was written at that time.

Gentry's arguments are specious. He argues about what some ancients "must have meant" when they say some things, and dismisses what other ancients explicitly said.

It is pure fantasy to claim that the statement by Irenaeus was "ambiguous." And this argument flatly contradicts his other argument that all the other ancient writers who said the same thing were depending on Irenaeus. If every naturally Greek speaking writer who read what Irenaeus said understood him the same way, how does Gentry come off pretending that he understands Irenaeus better than all the people that actually spoke his language?

And it was outright false for Gentry to have claimed that all the other ancients who agreed with Irenaeus were only depending on what he said. For, right in this thread, I have presented absolute proof that at least three other writers presented details about that than not even one other included. This is conclusive prof of an absolute minimum of four independent ancient sources of the information.

You can mock my scholarship, but you cannot get around the quotations I have presented, with absolute documentation as to who said it, and where he said it.

The claim that what Irenaeus said was ambiguous is nonsense, and the claim that all other ancient writers who said the same thing were only depending on him is a lie.

This is why almost all historians other than committed Preterists date the Revelation to the reign of Domatian.

If you think so Biblewriter...but I notice not Jesus nor the apostles "gap" anything...so I guess you know what that means.

When it comes to Gentry...it *seems* you really get *wound up*...I wonder why?

When it comes to your scholarship...who cares? How much scholarship did the *twelve have*?

Is any of this getting through? Your *scholarship* is within your camp...so that doesn't impress me at all, nor does it intimidate me.

WHat you need to do is realize many who challenged Jesus had *scholarship*. Paul had *scholarship*...yet when Paul met Jesus he didn't count on scholarship...he counted on the Holy Spirit.

You have "dispensational learning"...don't forget that.

 

[Biblewriter]

If you think so Biblewriter...but I notice not Jesus nor the apostles "gap" anything...so I guess you know what that means.

When it comes to Gentry...it *seems* you really get *wound up*...I wonder why?

When it comes to your scholarship...who cares? How much scholarship did the *twelve have*?

Is any of this getting through? Your *scholarship* is within your camp...so that doesn't impress me at all, nor does it intimidate me.

WHat you need to do is realize many who challenged Jesus had *scholarship*. Paul had *scholarship*...yet when Paul met Jesus he didn't count on scholarship...he counted on the Holy Spirit.

You have "dispensational learning"...don't forget that.

I get "wound up" when I see people playing fast and loose with the truth.

If you check back through this thread, you will see that I did not tout my scholarship. I only responded to your crass dismissal of it as of no account. You were the one that claimed Gentry was a thorough researcher, as opposed to what you claimed was my relative insignificance.

But the truth is that both my scholarship and your allegation of my lack of it, are insignificant. I have demonstrated facts which disprove Gentry's allegations. Facts are dispassionate. They are neither dispensational, futurist, preterist, or anything else. They have zero prejudice on any direction. The facts I have cited speak for themselves. If the things I have alleged as facts are not indeed facts, then demonstrate my error.

But unless is can be demonstrated that there is indeed a common source for four different witness who each allege as facts things stated by no other witness, Gentry's allegation that they were all simply depending upon the statement of Irenaeus is proven to be completely incorrect. And a person who has invested as much effort into research as you imagine Gentry did, has zero excuse for not knowing that this claim is incorrect. So Gentry is proven to be either a sloppy researcher of a blatant liar. Take you choice.

 

[ebedmelech]

I get "wound up" when I see people playing fast and loose with the truth.

OR...what you call truth. I hold it as error.

If you check back through this thread, you will see that I did not tout my scholarship. I only responded to your crass dismissal of it as of no account. You were the one that claimed Gentry was a thorough researcher, as opposed to what you claimed was my relative insignificance.

But the truth is that both my scholarship and your allegation of my lack of it, are insignificant. I have demonstrated facts which disprove Gentry's allegations. Facts are dispassionate. They are neither dispensational, futurist, preterist, or anything else. They have zero prejudice on any direction. The facts I have cited speak for themselves. If the things I have alleged as facts are not indeed facts, then demonstrate my error.

Let's understand something..." bible scholarship" is based on what an istitution teaches! They deem who are scholars based on their system of study. Just as you have scholars of evolution science AND scholars of creation science. Notice that there are scholars of both camps...therefore they oppose one another.

Same thing here Biblewriter...your scholarship is recognized by your "camp" (dispensational theology). Therefore there will be those NOT of your camp that have scholarship also...such as "Reformed Theology" and their scholarship. Are you understanding that? I think you know how that goes.

But unless is can be demonstrated that there is indeed a common source for four different witness who each allege as facts things stated by no other witness, Gentry's allegation that they were all simply depending upon the statement of Irenaeus is proven to be completely incorrect. And a person who has invested as much effort into research as you imagine Gentry did, has zero excuse for not knowing that this claim is incorrect. So Gentry is proven to be either a sloppy researcher of a blatant liar. Take you choice.

No...I don't have to take a choice. Just as I told you before, "scholarship" opposed Jesus...how did that work out?

This is not like say...a math scholarship. Math is something that will SHOW error because the computations will fail.

When it come to the scriptures, they stand above "scholarship". I didn't need to read "Before Jerusalem Fell" to understand that Revelation COULD NOT have been written in 95 AD. I can read Revelation and know that, because I read it as John says he wrote it IN SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE.

You don't have to agree with that...in fact I know you don't...and that is the utter error of your view.

 

[Biblewriter]

OR...what you call truth. I hold it as error.

Let's understand something..." bible scholarship" is based on what an istitution teaches! They deem who are scholars based on their system of study. Just as you have scholars of evolution science AND scholars of creation science. Notice that there are scholars of both camps...therefore they oppose one another.

Same thing here Biblewriter...your scholarship is recognized by your "camp" (dispensational theology). Therefore there will be those NOT of your camp that have scholarship also...such as "Reformed Theology" and their scholarship. Are you understanding that? I think you know how that goes.

No...I don't have to take a choice. Just as I told you before, "scholarship" opposed Jesus...how did that work out?

This is not like say...a math scholarship. Math is something that will SHOW error because the computations will fail.

When it come to the scriptures, they stand above "scholarship". I didn't need to read "Before Jerusalem Fell" to understand that Revelation COULD NOT have been written in 95 AD. I can read Revelation and know that, because I read it as John says he wrote it IN SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE.

You don't have to agree with that...in fact I know you don't...and that is the utter error of your view.

True scholarship is completely independent of the prejudoce the scholar. True scholarship learns and remembers facts. These facts may or may not su[pport the scholar's prejudice. When a person collects the facts he (or she) has learned, and presents them for others to consider, this is not scholarship, it is advocacy.

Advocates fall into various schools, but scholarship does not.

And scholarship did not oppose Jesus, advocates did. and these advocates thought themselves to be scholars of the scriptures, but they were very poor scholars. Fir if they had been true scholars of the scriptures, they would have recognized the Messiah, even as many of their peers did.

 

[Bible2]

ebedmelech said in post 404:

I didn't need to read "Before Jerusalem Fell" to understand that Revelation COULD NOT have been written in 95 AD. I can read Revelation and know that, because I read it as John says he wrote it IN SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE.

Revelation 1:1 doesn't mean that Jesus in Revelation chapters 6 to 22 is expressing the events of the future tribulation and the subsequent 2nd coming, millennium and other events through only symbolic references, instead of indicating these events almost entirely literally. For just as the original Greek word (deiknuo: G1166) translated as "show" in Revelation 1:1 doesn't have to refer to something being shown through symbolic references, but can refer to something being shown literally (Matthew 8:4), so the original Greek word (semaino: G4591) translated as "signified" in Revelation 1:1 doesn't have to refer to something being indicated through symbolic references, but can refer to something being indicated literally (Acts 25:27).

Revelation is almost entirely literal, for it's unsealed (Revelation 22:10), meaning that it shouldn't be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it's written: chronologically and almost-entirely literally. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (e.g. Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:9-12). And Revelation's few symbols not explained afterward (e.g. Revelation 13:2) are usually explained elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. Daniel 7:4-7,17).

Just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally, so the events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally. Also, the millennium in Revelation 20 will be literal, and will begin after Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21), when he will physically reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11). After that, the events of Revelation 20:7 to 22:5 will occur literally.

 

[ebedmelech]

True scholarship is completely independent of the prejudoce the scholar. True scholarship learns and remembers facts. These facts may or may not su[pport the scholar's prejudice. When a person collects the facts he (or she) has learned, and presents them for others to consider, this is not scholarship, it is advocacy.

That's a most improper assertion. Scholarship is based on learning, and it depends on where or who you're learning it from.

Advocates fall into various schools, but scholarship does not.

So then accout for scholars of evolution science, and scholars of creation science? You see where this is going? You're backing yourself in a corner.

And scholarship did not oppose Jesus, advocates did. and these advocates thought themselves to be scholars of the scriptures, but they were very poor scholars. Fir if they had been true scholars of the scriptures, they would have recognized the Messiah, even as many of their peers did.

This is the most ridiculous statement of all. The Pharisees and Sadducees were learned men of two different schools of theology. Paul was a Pharisee and learned under Gamaliel. Just stop...ok?

 

[Old Timer]

To me, thinking that the date that the revelation was written is important is like the proverbial missing the forest for the trees.

Does that somehow make the miraculous word of God concerning the things which shall be hereafter the things which are in the distant past?

As mentioned in the Amillennial thread, the beast of revelation is undeniably connected to the coming of Christ just as the man of sin is undeniably connected to the coming of Christ... In that Day..

Yes, you know what Day...

 

[ebedmelech]

Revelation 1:1 doesn't mean that Jesus in Revelation chapters 6 to 22 is expressing the events of the future tribulation and the subsequent 2nd coming, millennium and other events through only symbolic references, instead of indicating these events almost entirely literally. For just as the original Greek word (deiknuo: G1166) translated as "show" in Revelation 1:1 doesn't have to refer to something being shown through symbolic references, but can refer to something being shown literally (Matthew 8:4), so the original Greek word (semaino: G4591) translated as "signified" in Revelation 1:1 doesn't have to refer to something being indicated through symbolic references, but can refer to something being indicated literally (Acts 25:27).

Yes it does. For you to *attempt* to modify that understanding is simply wrong.

The word John used in Revelation 1:1 is "semaino"...and it mean to communicate using signs or symbols. John follws that up with symbols...like the 7 churches being 7 lampstands.

Stop the nonsense! Revelation is heavily symbolic, and the symbols are rooted in the OT prophets.

Revelation is almost entirely literal, for it's unsealed (Revelation 22:10), meaning that it shouldn't be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it's written: chronologically and almost-entirely literally. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (e.g. Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:9-12). And Revelation's few symbols not explained afterward (e.g. Revelation 13:2) are usually explained elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. Daniel 7:4-7,17).

That's really showing a true ignorance as well as a determination to impose on John's prophecy. So you keep thinking it *almost* entirely literal. You'll find out.

Just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally, so the events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally. Also, the millennium in Revelation 20 will be literal, and will begin after Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21), when he will physically reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11). After that, the events of Revelation 20:7 to 22:5 will occur literally.

Jesus clearly said He would "literally" return. However when he gave John the Revelation He said in Revelation 1:3:
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
That bessing comes when one understands HOW Revelation is written becuse through the signs and symbols one can get a true understanding.

What's really bad in what you're saying...is John's prophecy is based on a vision.

Question...why did Pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar (just to name a few), need someone to interpret the visions they had? That would be because the visions were symbolic...and they didn't understand the symbols.

Are you getting there?

 

[Biblewriter]

That's a most improper assertion. Scholarship is based on learning, and it depends on where or who you're learning it from.

So then accout for scholars of evolution science, and scholars of creation science? You see where this is going? You're backing yourself in a corner.

This is the most ridiculous statement of all. The Pharisees and Sadducees were learned men of two different schools of theology. Paul was a Pharisee and learned under Gamaliel. Just stop...ok?

You forgot the scholars of "climate science."

True scholars are not trying to prove anything. They are trying to learn facts. There are advocates of various schools of thought that labor tirelessly to find "facts" that bolster their pre-conceived biases. But these are not scholars in the true sense of the word, but only advocates with an agenda.

A true scholar is someone like Michael J. Cosby, who set out to prove that the Greek word apanthesis had a special technical meaning, but discovered instead that its meaning was entirely different from what he had imagined. Being an honest man, he proceeded to publish the proof that he had been mistaken.

 

[Bible2]

Old Timer said in post 408:

To me, thinking that the date that the revelation was written is important is like the proverbial missing the forest for the trees.

Does that somehow make the miraculous word of God concerning the things which shall be hereafter the things which are in the distant past?

Good point.

Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are future because they're about "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1b). And just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 has never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find its fulfillment, so the highly-detailed events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 have never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find their fulfillment.

The tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, which Jesus will return immediately after (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), hasn't started yet. It will begin with a horrible war, which, with its aftermath of famines and epidemics, will end up killing 1/4 of the world (Revelation 6:4-8). The "great sword" of this war (Revelation 6:4) could be Israel's nuclear weapons. After this war, there will be a terrible series of natural disasters historically unprecedented in their magnitude, such as a gigantic volcanic eruption (Revelation 6:12-14), possibly of the Yellowstone Caldera, and then the collapse into the ocean of another erupting volcano (Revelation 8:8-9), possibly one of the Canary Islands, the collapse of which could set up a huge tsunami which could destroy the eastern seaboard of the U.S.

If such a tsunami occurs, it could cause a string of awful, Fukushima-type, nuclear-meltdown radiation disasters in the nuclear power plants and their nuclear-waste storage facilities all along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. Also, if the tsunami breaks open the germ-containment structures on Plum Island, just off the coast of Connecticut, especially deadly viruses and bacteria could be washed inland and spread across the U.S. and Canada as they infect animals and people.

After the volcanic activity and possible tsunami, a comet will strike the earth (Revelation 8:10-11), possibly in the U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes region. As the comet falls from the sky, it will look like a great star, or like a burning lamp in the sky (Revelation 8:10). It will strike a region of the earth which contains 1/3 of the world's fresh surface water (Revelation 8:10b), and it will contain some poisonous element which will poison that water so that many who drink from it will die (Revelation 8:11b). Sometime after that, weird locust-like beings will swarm up from the bottomless pit of the earth to torment mankind with excruciating stings for 5 months (Revelation 9:2-10). The world could see them as "aliens" who had been hibernating for thousands of years in a cavern deep underground. The locust-like beings won't kill anyone, but they will make those they sting want to die, the pain will be so bad (Revelation 9:5-6).

After that, an army of 200 million weird horse-like beings and their (possibly unclean spirit) riders will come upon the earth (Revelation 9:16-19). If they descend from the sky in spaceships, the world could see them as aliens. But they and the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") could (falsely) say that they're YHWH God's main army. In fact, they could be loyal to Lucifer (Satan, the dragon, Revelation 12:9). The 4 fallen angels now bound at the Euphrates who will lead this army (Revelation 9:14-16) could employ it to make mankind utterly desperate before its complete takeover by Lucifer and the Antichrist mid-tribulation (Revelation 12:9 to 13:18). For when this army starts killing 1/3 of mankind (Revelation 9:16-19), then could also begin one of the biggest deceptions ever wrought on humanity. For the Antichrist, who by that time could have managed to have been elected as the President of a Mediterranean Union formed by the joining of the European Union with an Arab Union stretching from Oman to Morocco, could announce to the world that he has sent a mental distress call to (what he could call) "My Father, our Lord Lucifer, to come with his legions of angels, and rescue mankind from this murderous army of YHWH".

(And all of this will be part of only the 1st half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24.)

It's at this point that Lucifer and his fallen angels could be cast down out of heaven to the earth permanently after losing a mid-tribulation war in heaven (Revelation 12:7-9). But instead of coming down as a defeated force, they could descend for all the world to see in gigantic, magnificent golden spaceships onto the "Champ de Mars", Mars being the same as Marduk the dragon, the chief god of ancient Babylon. The "Champ de Mars" is the large open area in front of the Eiffel Tower in Paris. After landing there, Lucifer, a literal 7-headed, red dragon (Revelation 12:3,9), could emerge in great splendor and command his angels to capture the army of 200 million weird horse-like beings and their (possibly unclean spirit) riders, who could then pretend to defect from serving YHWH to serving Lucifer. Lucifer could then confirm that he has come to rescue mankind because the Antichrist, who he could say is his only-begotten "Son", called upon him (like in an Antichrist counterfeit of Matthew 26:53). Lucifer and the Antichrist could then be received wholeheartedly by the unsaved world as the saviors of mankind. And the unsaved world could be left thinking (mistakenly) that Lucifer and his angels were more powerful than even YHWH God's main army.

Lucifer and the Antichrist, along with the Antichrist's miracle-working False Prophet, will then deceive the world into actually worshipping Lucifer and the Antichrist and a speaking (possibly android) image of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4-16, Revelation 19:20; 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). And everyone will be made to receive a (possibly scarification) mark of the Antichrist either on their right hand or forehead, consisting of either the Antichrist's name or some representation of the gematrial number of his name (666) (Revelation 13:16-18). After Lucifer and the Antichrist have ruled the world for 3.5 literal years (Revelation 13:4-18), YHWH will send 7 vials of wrath against the unsaved world (Revelation 16).

Near the end of the 7 vials, unclean spirits like frogs will come out of the mouths of Lucifer, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet (Revelation 16:13). And these unclean spirits like frogs will go forth and perform amazing miracles to convince the world's armies to gather together at Armageddon (Har Megiddo: Mount Megiddo in northern Israel) (Revelation 16:16) to battle against YHWH himself (Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19). After gathering together at Armageddon as a staging area, the armies will travel south and pillage Jerusalem, right before Jesus (who is YHWH: John 10:30) returns from heaven and defeats them completely (Revelation 19:11 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:2-21).

When Jesus returns, immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Revelation 19:7-21, Matthew 24:29-31), he will descend bodily from heaven on a white horse (Revelation 19:7-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12) with all the holy angels (Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7) for all the world to see (Matthew 24:27,30, Revelation 1:7). Then the church will be bodily resurrected (if dead) or changed (if alive) into immortality (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Revelation 20:4-6) and caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (Matthew 24:31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1) as high as the clouds of the sky to hold a meeting in the air with Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

At that meeting, Jesus will judge the church (Psalms 50:3-5, cf. Mark 13:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10, Luke 12:45-48) and marry its obedient part (Revelation 19:7-8, Matthew 25:1-12) in the clouds, before it mounts white horses and comes back down from sky (the 1st heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) as he defeats the world's armies (Revelation 19:19,21), and the Antichrist and False Prophet (Revelation 19:20), and has Lucifer (Satan) bound in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3).

Jesus will then make the marriage supper of Revelation 19:9 for the obedient part of the church in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:54), while the birds will feast on the corpses of the world's defeated armies (Revelation 19:17-18). Then Jesus and the obedient part of the church will rule the surviving nations with a rod of iron for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 2). After the 1,000 years, Lucifer will be released from the bottomless pit and bring about the Gog/Magog rebellion, only to be defeated for the last time (Revelation 20:7-10, Ezekiel chapters 38-39).

At least 7 years after that defeat (Ezekiel 39:9b), the great white throne judgment will occur, in which all those who hadn't been resurrected and judged at Jesus' return will be resurrected and judged (Revelation 20:11-15). Then God will create a new heaven (a new 1st heaven: a new sky/atmosphere for the earth) and a new earth (a new surface for the earth) (Revelation 21:1; 2 Peter 3:10b,13). Then God the Father will descend from the 3rd heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2), the Father's house (John 14:2, Revelation 21:3), and he will dwell on the earth with Jesus and the church (Revelation 21:3).

In one area outside the walls of New Jerusalem on the new earth will be the lake of fire (Revelation 22:15, Revelation 21:8), in which all of unsaved humanity will be punished forever in fire and brimstone with Lucifer and his fallen angels (Revelation 20:10,15, Matthew 25:41,46).

Old Timer said in post 408:

As mentioned in the Amillennial thread, the beast of revelation is undeniably connected to the coming of Christ just as the man of sin is undeniably connected to the coming of Christ...

That's right.

"Beasts" can refer figuratively to men (Titus 1:12). And Revelation uses a Greek masculine-pronoun "him" to refer to its beast (Revelation 13:8) when it's referring to the individual "man" (Revelation 13:18) aspect of its beast, commonly called the Antichrist, the individual "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3) who will sit (at least one time) in a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). He will bring the world into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and himself (Revelation 13:4,8, Revelation 12:9).

He will rule the earth for 3.5 literal years (Revelation 13:5-10, Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7), and will have a miracle-working False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13), who by amazing, Satanic miracles (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9), such as calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13), will deceive the world into worshipping a speaking (possibly an android) image of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:15), and receiving a mark of the Antichrist's name or gematrial name-number (666) on their right hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16-18). The Antichrist and his False Prophet will ultimately be cast into the lake of fire at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:20), whereas at that time Satan will be bound in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3). None of these things has happened yet.

Any mistaken teaching which claims that the Antichrist has already come and gone could be employed in our future by the real Antichrist to fool some Christians into thinking that he isn't the Antichrist.

The idea of a future, individual-man Antichrist was correctly recognized in the scriptures by the church from early on. Irenaeus (born c. 140 AD) used the term: "speaking of Antichrist, [Paul] says, 'who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped'" (Against Heresies 3:6:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:4); "...by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God" (Against Heresies 5:25:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36, Revelation 13:8); "...when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem" (Against Heresies 5:30:4b; Revelation 13:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7); "...the number of the name of the beast ... the name of Antichrist" (Against Heresies 5:30:1; Revelation 13:17c-18).

The gematrial numerical values of the letters in the Antichrist's personal name will add up to six hundred and sixty-six (Revelation 13:17c-18).

 

[ebedmelech]

You forgot the scholars of "climate science."

True scholars are not trying to prove anything. They are trying to learn facts. There are advocates of various schools of thought that labor tirelessly to find "facts" that bolster their pre-conceived biases. But these are not scholars in the true sense of the word, but only advocates with an agenda.

A true scholar is someone like Michael J. Cosby, who set out to prove that the Greek word apanthesis had a special technical meaning, but discovered instead that its meaning was entirely different from what he had imagined. Being an honest man, he proceeded to publish the proof that he had been mistaken.

I take it that means you're not a "true scholar" then......because you certainly can't get the truth of Romans 9...

 

[A New World]

Biblewriter wrote: "What I did NOT say is that any of this proves when the Revelation was written. I only proved, beyond the possibility of rational debate,that this is what the overwhelming majority of ancient commentators said."

I've read some of what you've written, but I really appreciate the two sentences above. Actually you've simply shown selected snapshots of what a few "ancient commentators said."

You've "proven" the opinions of four men. And, that many have followed the opinions of these and others over the centuries. It is one thing to examine the surviving (maybe accurate, maybe not) opinions of selected individuals, and quite another to submit to the inspired, preserved Word of God.

It's refreshing that you understand these opinions have no bearing on what Scripture says, what it means, or when it was written. Your research may be useful to one who has an interest in early church history. As far as a Bible student is concerned, you've proven nothing. Searching for the correct version of church history and pursuing Biblical truth are two vastly different endeavors.

We can all go back and research disputed quotes from almost two thousand years ago, but ultimately they prove nothing. All the energy spent here trying to establish what an acquaintance of an acquaintance of an acquaintance thought is really meaningless. The ONLY evidence that is reliable is God's holy, inerrant Word. Your above statement seems to say you recognize that.

The best approach to determining when Revelation was written is by examining the time statements throughout the book. IOW, the internal, inspired evidence.

For anyone interested in pursuing biblical truth do the work yourself, read the Word, develop an understanding, test your findings through further study and debate. Don't rely on extra-biblical opinion, it's a trap!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Biblewriter

You forgot the scholars of "climate science.".....​

​

​

Such as these NT characters?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Jesus vs the OC Judean rulers and hypocrites

Matthew 16:
2 He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’;
3 “and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites!
You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times.

Matthew 23:
15 Woe to ye Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
33 "Serpents! produce of vipers!
how? ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV <1067>

The Rapping Weatherman&#39;s First Live Weather Rap - YouTube


.

 

[Biblewriter]

I take it that means you're not a "true scholar" then......because you certainly can't get the truth of Romans 9...

It is obvious that one of us has no idea what it means.

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter wrote: "What I did NOT say is that any of this proves when the Revelation was written. I only proved, beyond the possibility of rational debate,that this is what the overwhelming majority of ancient commentators said."

I've read some of what you've written, but I really appreciate the two sentences above. Actually you've simply shown selected snapshots of what a few "ancient commentators said."

You've "proven" the opinions of four men. And, that many have followed the opinions of these and others over the centuries. It is one thing to examine the surviving (maybe accurate, maybe not) opinions of selected individuals, and quite another to submit to the inspired, preserved Word of God.

It's refreshing that you understand these opinions have no bearing on what Scripture says, what it means, or when it was written. Your research may be useful to one who has an interest in early church history. As far as a Bible student is concerned, you've proven nothing. Searching for the correct version of church history and pursuing Biblical truth are two vastly different endeavors.

We can all go back and research disputed quotes from almost two thousand years ago, but ultimately they prove nothing. All the energy spent here trying to establish what an acquaintance of an acquaintance of an acquaintance thought is really meaningless. The ONLY evidence that is reliable is God's holy, inerrant Word. Your above statement seems to say you recognize that.

The best approach to determining when Revelation was written is by examining the time statements throughout the book. IOW, the internal, inspired evidence.

For anyone interested in pursuing biblical truth do the work yourself, read the Word, develop an understanding, test your findings through further study and debate. Don't rely on extra-biblical opinion, it's a trap!

The question of when the Revelation was written cannot be solved by reading the text. Preterists claim that the internal evidence in the text of the Revelation itself proves it could not have been written after the fall of Jerusalem. But, without even one exception, every piece of "internal evidence" they produce is actually evidence only if it is assumed that their theories are correct. That is, their "internal evidence" does not actually exist.

And I did not just give the comments of four individuals, I gave the comments of seven individuals who clearly dated the Revelation to the reign of Domatian. I further pointed out the ambiguities in every alleged witness to an earlier date except two. And I gave the actual witnesses for the unreliability of both of the only two ancient sources that clearly stated an earlier date.

A historical fact agreed upon by this many witnesses from the general period, and unquestionably denied by not even one reliable witness, is normally considered ironclad fact.

Futurists could care less when the Revelation was written. That date is a wholly insignificant point to a futurist. Put the date for the book given by every reliable witness from the period makes Preterism absolutely impossible. For they all agree that it was written after the time that Preterists claim it was prophecying.

Could this possibly be the reason that Preterism was never even invented until long after the general populace became ignorant of the general facts of the time?

 

[Interplanner]

BW,
you might want to check your first paragraph for a typo on before or after the DofJ. I think you meant to say before, but then I read your last paragraph (not the question) that says they see it as predicting something that had already happened.

My understanding, for the record, is that it was given right before the horrible period of double persecution (or double-sourced) for them to brace themselves.

In that case--a case of encouraging them pastorally as they face the horrendous prospect of beheadings, burnings, etc.--the internal evidence exists more than we would like to think.

To all: BW already agrees that Lk 21 (implying the previous in Luke) is about the DofJ. Through some technicalities it is "totally different" from the other two. Ie, believing that the NT might be referring to something in that generation is already in existence before BW says it was "invented" and he believes some of it (let's say half). That predates the "unfinished business" approach which Christian thinkers a century later thought they had to clear up.

 

[Biblewriter]

BW,
you might want to check your first paragraph for a typo on before or after the DofJ. I think you meant to say before, but then I read your last paragraph (not the question) that says they see it as predicting something that had already happened.

Tank you. I have corrected the typo.

My understanding, for the record, is that it was given right before the horrible period of double persecution (or double-sourced) for them to brace themselves.

In that case--a case of encouraging them pastorally as they face the horrendous prospect of beheadings, burnings, etc.--the internal evidence exists more than we would like to think.

To all: BW already agrees that Lk 21 (implying the previous in Luke) is about the DofJ. Through some technicalities it is "totally different" from the other two. Ie, believing that the NT might be referring to something in that generation is already in existence before BW says it was "invented" and he believes some of it (let's say half). That predates the "unfinished business" approach which Christian thinkers a century later thought they had to clear up.

Actually, the earliest Christian writer that was clearly futurist is estimated to have written some time between 15 and 45 years after most historians conclude the Revelation was given, not a century later.

And the earliest Christian writer that was clearly Preterist did not write until a very long time after that. And Preterism was never taught as a system until more than sixteen hundred years after the earliest known futurist writings.

 

[Interplanner]

Except that it was already there. Read Latourrette, the highest regarded church historian after Schaff. Is it wise to handle such things without consulting established and published scholars?

 

[Old Timer]

Is it wise to handle such things without consulting established and published scholars?

No surprise here as to where you look for the truth