Dating the writing of Revelation

Did I say that?

What about the OT verses I quoted, literal?

 

If suppose the book of Revelation was written in 70 A.D.

Has the persecutions upon the Church finally ended at year 70 A.D.?

How about thousands of Christians were persecuted and eaten by wild animals in Colossuem many years after Revelation were written?

How about thousands of Christians were persecuted under Roman Catholic during Spaniah Inquistion era many hundred years later AFTER Revelation were written?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

No. But the Jewish persecution did. That is why the saints rejoice at the destruction of Babylon in Revelation.

What about them?

 

When was the book of Revelation written: After researching about 10 books from my personal
library, the following is a ccmpilation:

BEFORE AD 70: Hort, Lightfood, Salmon, Torrey, Westcott.

AROUND AD 96: Alford, Elliott, Godet, Lange, Lee, Milligan, Moffatt, Orr, Swete and Zahn.
(1) The great persecution seen in Revelation better fits Domitian than Nero. Nero’s persecution
was short and local while Domitian’s was empire-wide and long.
(2) The fully developed seven churches of Asia Minor fits Domitian better than Nero. The
churches seem to have been in existence for a while and have acquired a history.
(3) Irenaeus, Clement of AlexandrIa, and Eusebius all state that it was written during the time of
Domitian.
(4) NOTE: Thiessan says of the arguments of the AD64-69 theory: “Nero did not return; Jerusalem was destroyed and not exalted; Rome did not perish; and the three and one half years did not bring the end. Yet in spite of all these failures, the Church everywhere received the book as inspired. This indicates that the early date is incorrect.”
(5) Modern scholars from liberal (Westminster) to Roman Catholic (New American Bible notes)
to dispensational (Ryrie, Scofield) agree on AD 96.

 

Amen, Brother Russ Kelly -- Preach it!

 

RK,

You can add Gentry and Chilton to the pre 70 AD list, and Sproul has leaned in that dirrection of late. Eusebius' statement is ambiguous, if you've ever read it. And at least one well-known "church father" dated Rev. early (I think it was Justin). So ultimately, scholars do not speak with a unified voice on the subject.

That leaves us with the text of Rev. itself--does it seem to point to a first-century fulfillment? Unless one is determined to hold to "literal" fulfillment of cataclysmic language, the text of Rev. would lead us to the earlier date in several places.

First and foremost, the introduction of the book:

Rev. 1:3 regarding the "words of this prophecy" it says "the time is at hand". Now if one wants to redefine those words as meaning "having the quality of immenency" (JVI), I supppose they can do so, yet I would challenge them to find any clear example anywhere else in scripture where "at hand" does not mean "soon".

If anyone cares to answer that one, we can then go on to the next textual problem with thrusting all these prophecies far into the future, and the next, etc., etc.

In Christ,

Tim

 

I keep coming back to the book, "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. It deals with all the internal and external evidences along with those objections you listed and many more. It is a must read for anyone serious about this subject.

Here are a few tidbits from an article by Jim Hopkins:

The external evidence centers around Irenaeus (130-202). He was commenting on the number 666 when he wrote: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
If John saw the vision towards the end of Domitian's reign, then a date of 95 or 96 AD would fit very nicely, for Domitian was killed in 96 AD, after being Caesar for 14 years. But the statement is ambiguous as to what was seen. Was it John that was seen or did he see the vision then? If it was John that was seen, the vision had to have been seen earlier. If John, then he had been last seen 'almost in their day,' and if it had been necessary for them to have known the name of the Antichrist, John could have made it known to them. Therefore, a date earlier than 95 AD would be required. Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient.


Most writers consider the theme of the book to be Rev 1:7: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they which pierced him: and all tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen." This verse is very similar in context to Mt 24:30: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." There is a cloud-coming, all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they will see him. It may not be conclusive standing alone, but you can see that just based on the language a case can be made that the two verses are speaking of the same event. I think you would concur with me that Mt 24:30 is a verse that speaks of the fall of Jerusalem. And that is just the case that I am making about the Revelation -- it speaks of the fall of Jerusalem.


Historically, Nero is the one that persecuted Christians beyond all comparison. One of the things that doesn't fit is the persecution of Domitian. There is very little evidence for any involved persecution. And even if there was, the vision takes place after the persecution! So where is the fulfillment?
It was interesting to me to see a major historian change his mind. In Philip Schaff's, "History of the Christian Church," Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882, he makes this statement: "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)."

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/hopkins-jim_p_06.html

 

GH,

Thanks for clarifying. It's been a while since I've read Gentry or gotten into the nitty-gritty details of the Rev. date from an historical perspective.

I thought Schaff believed in an early date, but I don't remember seeing that quote before.

Ultimately, I think the internal evidence for an early writing of Rev. is much stronger than the external eveidence, so I'm hoping for some point by point debate on specific passages from the book.


In Christ,

Tim

 

We can play the add a name game for ever and not prove anything. Each school of thought can
contribute 50 or more of its theologians.

Rev 1:1 “must shortly come to pass.” Robertson says that the verb, “genesthai,” is an Aorist
middle/passive infinitive of the deponent verb,” ginomai..” The first definition in Thayer’s
includes “begin to come to pass.” Therefore, there is no conclusive interpretation for either of us to lean upon.
Some Conservative Preterists applies the 1260 days to the 3 ½ years before AD 70. Therefore
they define “shortly” as “beginning shortly” and lasting 3 1/2 years. Historicists interpret
“shortly” as “beginning shortly” and slowly unfolding throughout the church ages. Futurists
interpret “shortly” as “must begin to come to pass shortly” but the events extend even beyond the end of the millennium. How can “shortly come to pass” possibly explain the 1000 years
mentioned six times in chapter 20??
In my humble opinion, Preterists have a greater problem with the word “must” while non-
preterists have a greater problem with the word “shortly.” There are simple too many things in Revelation that did NOT occur in AD 70. When you spiritualize the prophecy, the impetus of
“must” becomes meaningless.
Dr. Russ

 

RK,

I don't understand your reasoning in the statement above. Further explanation?

Tim

 

I agree 100%. Therefore both must be put into play.

This is an argument I don't understand. Both sides use the imagery of Revelation as symbolic of people and entities.

666= future anti christ
666= Nero or the Caesaer position of Rome

Babylon= Iraq, NYC, future Revived Roman Empire
Babylon= 1st century Jerusalem

One interprets from a futurist view the other from a past view.

Why is this?

Can you show any NT scriptures where "shortly and "time is near" (vs 3) that are to be understood using your definition?

 

Concerning "shortly," my point is that all three theories apply this to mean "will shortly begin to occur" without reference to the entire prophecy occuring shortly.

Concerning "must" in 1:1, preterists interpret this to mean "must be spiritually fulfilled" even if it means re-writing history. By application, you says that it "MUST NOT" be fulfilled with any kind of historical accuracy.

Revelation is apocalyptic, BUT it is INSPIRED apocalypic and must be fulfilled within the frame work of accurate historical events.

Again, Nero's persecution was local and very limited whereas Donmitian's was empire-wide and caused much more martydom. Actually, neither Nero's persecution nor Domitian's hardly fits that seen in Revelation. You have to greatly spiritualize historical facts to place the fulfillment of Revelation in the first century.

For example:
6:4 There was no drastic removal of "peace" from the Pax Romana of the empire seen in AD 70.
6:8 1/4 of the population of earth did not die in the first century.
6:8 No earthquake occured that moved every mountain andn island.
6:15 Every person on earth did not hide from God?
6:16 They are to hide from the "face" of God who is sitting on his "throne." This is a literal event and not a spiritual one, or the prophecy is meaningless.
7:1-- Where does first century history record that 144, 000 (or even many thousands) of any group of believers who were impervious to Rome's persecutions?
8:7-9 Which history book records that 1/3 of the earth burned up or 1/3 of the life in the sea died during the first century? Certainly a catastrophe of this magnitude would have been recorded.
9:5 Which historian records 5 months of supernatural punishment of non-believers in the first century?
11:2 The Gentiles (Rome) did not STOP persecuting Jews (or Christians) when the 1260 days was over!!! Therefore preterism is wrong.
16:16 The battle of Armaggeddon occur in a "place". Christ's so0called return (even if spiritual) in AD 70 did not destroy Rome as clearly repeated in Revelation many times!!!
17:-- The 8 caesars of Rome did not fulfill this chapter. The problem with this is that MANY MORE FOLLOWED FOR MANY CENTURIES!!! There is to be ONLY 8!!
19:-- A literal Christ did not return to destroy a literal antichrist. How can 1/2 of the equation (Nero) be literal, but the second half (Christ) be a spirtual coming to destroy a literal Nero?
20:-- How does "must shortly come to pass" include the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth unless the phrase means "must shortly begin to come to pass"? When God repeated the phrase, "thousand years," six (6) times, he was trying to get somebody literal attentiion.

One more thing about Nero. Until AD 80 Christianity was considered an "unlicensed" religiion and did not become an "outlaw" religion untill AD 80.

Preterists have to re-write history and totally ignore what really happened in AD 70 in order to make their explanation work. Most liberal preterists simply treat Revelation as uninspired and do not try to defend it like conservative preterists do. I hate to see conservatives trying to defend this position.

 

RK,

Your point that "must" means "must literally" is simply an assertion born of your eschatological position.

When Malachi predicted the return of Elijah, the scribes and pharisees interpreted the prediction as "must literally" (Mat. 17:10), yet Jesus explained it to His disciples otherwise (Mat. 17:11-13). Malachi was inspired, and so was Christ's non-literal interpretation of Malachi's prophecy.

All your assertions that "earth" must mean the entire globe, are also simply assertions. The word is used to represent a limited geographical area (i.e.Israel and surrounding area) elsewhere in scripture. Luke even uses the term "all the world" when we know historically he was referring to only a particular region (Luke 2:1).

Are you claiming that 144,000 believing Jews were not martyred for Christ in the first century? That though they are referred to as "the firstfruits" they really will be the "lastfruits"?

According to Schaaf (the esteemed church historian) the church enjoyed some 15 years without persecution after Nero's reign ended.

And Nero was the last true "Ceasar" of Rome. Though others adopted the traditional title, Nero was the last of his family line to rule the Empire.

Finally, simply because an obviously future section (Rev. 20 looking forward "1000" years) was not "soon" fulfilled, would not make the rest of the prophecy exempt from that qualifier. Again, John said "the time is at hand". So one would assume that it all was "at hand" unless otherwise noted (as Rev. 20 is).

Tim

 

Tim
You have reversed history again several times.
(1) The Bibel does not say that the 144,000 were martyred! They will be SEALED to protect them from martyrdom.
(2) I admire and often quote Schaff myself. The fact that there was 15 years of peace between AD 65 and AD 80 proves nothing. AD 80 was the year the real persecution began when the church was declared "outlaw, ouside of the law." Why boast of a short peace? Why would God prophesy the limited persecution of Nero inAD 66 and ignore the much worse perseutdions in AD 96, around AD 260 and around AD 310?
(3) You make a big deal about Nero's lineage ending and fulfilling Revelation 17. Yet, the beast of Revelation 12, 13, and 17 is not a family, but a powerful NATION similar to that of Rome. You totally ignore the fact that this NATION is to be destroyed AFTER the eighth king by the second coming of Jesus Christ. That did not happen in AD 70!!!
(4) The gospel was "at hand" when John the Baptist began preaching about Jesus Christ. It is still "at hand" to those who hear it for the first time. It is "at hand" every time the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner. Your own admissin of the coming 1260 days and 1000 years proves that you also APPLY this phrase to mean "beginning."
(5) Earlier, Grasshopper said that "Babylon" in Revelation represents "Jerusalem." That is awful theology. Since your theory teaches that AD 70 is the focus of Revelation, you have to figure a way to prove that the destructin of Jerusalem and the Tenmple are shown in Revelation. Actually, neither event is prophesied in Revelation. I simply will not accept your calling the "temple of God" and "the holy city" from Revelation 11:1,2 "Babylon." Again, you reversed history.

 

The 144000 are representative of the 12 tribes who were believers. These are the believers whom Jesus warned to "flee Judea when you see the army surround Jerusalem" Luke 21.
Do you consider Luke 21 to still be future?

As Tim said they were the "first fruits" not the "nearly last fruits". How were they sealed?The same way we are:
Ephesians 1:13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,--in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Because God was speaking of the Jewish Age and the end of it.. The Jewish age ended in AD70. All the prophecies were to be fulfilled in the "last days". Are you like Bro Ed and believe the last days started at the time of Jesus and still continue today?

Let scripture interpret scripture. Is that awful theology? Why do you insist on going outside of scripture to identify Babylon?

"The Great City"

Babylon

Rev 18:18 and cried out as they looked upon the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like the great city?
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, wherein all that had their ships in the sea were made rich by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

Jerusalem

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

"Whore and Adultery"

Babylon

Rev 17: 5 and upon her forehead a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Jerusalem

Ez 6: 9 And those of you that escape shall remember me among the nations whither they shall be carried captive, how that I have been broken with their lewd heart, which hath departed from me, and with they eyes, which play the harlot after their idols: and they shall loathe themselves in their own sight for the evils which they have committed in all their abominations.

Ez 16:15 But thou didst trust in thy beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy whoredoms on every one that passed by; his it was.
16 And thou didst take of thy garments, and madest for thee high places decked with divers colors, and playedst the harlot upon them: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so.

Jer. 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, will he return unto her again? will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith Jehovah.
2 Lift up thine eyes unto the bare heights, and see; where hast thou not been lain with? By the ways hast thou sat for them, as an Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.
3 Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; yet thou hast a harlot's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.
4 Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My Father, thou art the guide of my youth?
5 Will he retain his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and hast done evil things, and hast had thy way.
6 Moreover Jehovah said unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
7 And I said after she had done all these things, She will return unto me; but she returned not: and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery , I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot.

"Blood of the Saints"

Babylon

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder.

Rev18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth.

Jerusalem

Matt 23: 30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?
34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


I Thess2:14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men;
16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

"Saints warned to Escape"

Babylon

Rev 18: 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:
5 for her sins have reached even unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived

Jerusalem

Lk 21:20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.
21 Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out ; and let not them that are in the country enter therein.
22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

"Adorned like a Priest"

Babylon

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearls , having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations, even the unclean things of her fornication,

Rev 18:16 saying, Woe, woe, the great city, she that was arrayed in fine linen and purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearl!

Jerusalem

Ex 28: 5 And they shall take the gold, and the blue, and the purple, and the scarlet, and the fine linen.
6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of the skilful workman7 It shall have two shoulder-pieces joined to the two ends thereof, that it may be joined together.8 And the skilfully woven band, which is upon it, wherewith to gird it on, shall be like the work thereof and of the same piece; of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen..9 And thou shalt take two onyx stones, and grave on them the names of the children of Israel:10 six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the six that remain on the other stone, according to their birth.11 With the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones, according to the names of the children of Israel: thou shalt make them to be inclosed in settings of gold.

"Destroyed by Hailstones"

Babylon

Rev 16:
21 And great hail, every stone about the weight of a talent, cometh down out of heaven upon men: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof is exceeding great.

Jerusalem

Josephus records in his book, "War of the Jews" Book 5 chapter 6:3 , that stones weighing 1 talent were catapulted into Jerusalem during the siege by the Roman armies.

Punishment for a harlot were burning and stoning

Old Covenant instructions:

Lev21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Deut 22:20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones , because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.


Babylon

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire.

Rev 18:21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.

Notice the celebration of the fall of Babylon:


Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her.

No more persecution of the early church by the Jews. They had been judged just as Jesus said they would be.

Matt 23: 34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you , All these things shall come upon this generation .

Since your theory teaches Revelation is future, you must figure out a way to disprove the obvious.

So it's Rome?


Revelation 1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Signified seems to mean that this book is full of symbols and metaphores. Why not interpret it as such.

 

RK,

1--Actually I overstated what I believe there, (sorry, I was in a hurry) I believe many of the 144,000 were Christian martyrs, but not all. The 144,000 were the beliving faithful remnant of Jews--the Jewish seed out of which the church grew. The scriptures do not clearly state whether they were martyred or not, but that they were "sealed" before God's judgment began.

2--The point about those years of peace are that they were the first the church had ever experienced! Yes, tribulation returned after Nero's crazed onslaught against Christians--it has come and gone throughout history in regions throughout the world. But I believe the significance of the first 40 years of persecution was that it was Satan's attempt to wipe out Christianity before it really got started and spread. By the 90's it was too late for that.

3--What I'm seeing as I read through Rev. 12,13, & 17 is that the "whore" is destroyed by the "beast" and that the Lamb overcomes those who made war against Him. The "whore" nation was unbelieving Israel, which along with Rome warred against Christ and the church. Unbelieving Israel was destroyed by Rome in the first century. And God did depose the regime of Nero which had also warred against Him. The church was then established as the eternal kingdom, and Rome ultimately did bow to Christianity.

4--The "kingdom of heaven" was "at hand", not the "gospel". Indeed that heavenly kingdom was established during the days of the Roman Empire as Daniel had long before prophesied.

I dealt with the "1000" years in my previous post--it is a small part of the book of Rev. I believe that when John said the prophecy must soon come to pass, he clearly exempted the futurist part (Rev. 20 plus), logically leaving the other 90+% of the book still "soon" to take place.

Your view makes only 10% of the prophecy soon, and doesn't tell us where to make an exception to that statement. Thus the introductory "the time is at hand" statement is so open-ended as to be considered meaningless. You are deciding where it applies and where it doesn't. I'm letting John tell me.

5--John clearly refers to Jerusalem as "Sodom and Egypt" Rev. 11:8. Why then is "Babylon" so "awful"?

Aditionally, if the "temple of God" in Rev. 11:1 is some future temple in which God has never dwelt--would it still be called the "temple of God"?

I have not "reversed history", but rebuilding the temple and calling it God's temple would surely be reversing history! New Testament, move over--we're going back to the Old Testament.

Tim

 

Preterist friends,
(1) John was a prisoner of Rome.
(2) Surely Rome would read his outgoing mail.
(3) Rome was the greatest enemy of the Church.
(4) Rome is the city built on seven hills.
(5) When the Bible specifically uses the word, "spiritually," you interpret it to mean "literally" and interpret everything which is suppossed to be "literal" as "spiritual." My head is spinning.
(6) Since John was a prisoner of Rome with his mail being read by Roman soldiers, he could not criticize Rome itself, so he called it Babylon.
(7) You seem to think that Jerusalem was a greater threat to the Church than was Rome.
(8) Since Rome would have welcomed John prophesying that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, WHY did he have to disguise those terms?

 

RK,

1--no argument
2--no argument
3--Both Rome and Jerusalem had set themselves as enemies of the church, i.e. the "whore" rode the "beast", then the beast turned on her (Rev. 17).
4--Rome was one city built on seven hills, and I agree tht John is referring to Rome in Rev. 17:9. That should be clear from what I'm saying throughout these posts. The Ceasar in power WAS Rome (if you don't believe me, ask a Ceasar). So we even equate despots with their country today (news stories use this kind of language all the time).
5--I understand that your head is spinning--but, hey, I'm trying to help you straighten it out! Please give examples of where we've said something is spiritual when the scripture says its literal and vice-versa. I don't accept these blanket statements.
6--this does not necessarily follow
7--Both Jerusalem and Rome were threats to the church
8--John had to beware of both threats (remember "the whore rode the beast") that were set against the church. For most of the early persecution, unbelieving Jewish leaders had the most hatred for the church, while Rome had the power to kill whoever they pleased. When the two worked together against the church (just as they had against Christ himself)they were indeed a foe to be wary of.

Tim