Good quote arguing for an early date for Revelation

This was not uncommon for the Jews. The ten southern tribes had gone into captivity in 722 B.C., and Judah went in 586 B.C. The temple that they had been worshiping at was built by Herod, and it was not that old (comparatively). The Jews were used to being in captivity and used to being scattered.

Furthermore in the time of Christ they came from all over for the feast of Pentecost. It doesn't seem like many of them lived right in Jerusalem.

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (Acts 2:5)

And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:8-11)

It seemed as if these Jews came from every part of the known world. They had not all gathered to live in Jerusalem. Very few actually lived in Jerusalem. Antioch may have been a larger city than Jerusalem.

Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one. (Acts 5:15-16)
--Peter demonstrated the gift of healing here. It wasn't so much the sick of Jerusalem that came to be healed here, but rather those from the cities round about unto Jerusalem that came to be healed. One needs to study this passage carefully. For when Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D., yes, Jerusalem was destroyed, but what about the cities round about Jerusalem that Peter is referring? Were they also destroyed. That seems to be where most of the believers were.

Judaizers exist today in their many forms. If you want some examples look at the Church of Christ, and even in the RCC. In its strictest form there are still those that require circumcision as a part of the gospel. To say that these false teachers ended their false teaching pre-70 A.D. is quite a stretch of the imagination. We will always have their false teaching just as we will always have one of the earliest of the heresies to enter Christendom--baptismal regeneration. It came early and is still common today. Heresy just doesn't fade away. It reappears. Sometimes in different forms but it never simply goes away. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

And you know this how?

A false conclusion is based on a false premise. First you must convince me that your premise is true. What makes you think that the Judaizers either ceased to exist or could not influence the Jews any longer.

This flies in the evidence of all that I have given you. From history, commentary, encyclopedia, etc., you ignore everything. On this point you are wrong. You ignore all the evidence here and stick to an opinion which you cannot prove. The book, as were all of John's writings, were written in the 90's. You have given no reason to believe otherwise.

Again, this is your second false conclusion that you have built on that one tenuous false premise. Your false premise is really only an opinion that you cannot prove. And you have drawn all these conclusions from it.

Yes they did have animosity. But you cannot prove they didn't exist. And at that point everything you have said falls apart. You have hinged everything in this post on that one premise, and it cannot be verified.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

The entire article is good. It explains what happened to the Judaizers. They still had an influence.

 

The persecution of Christians came from: (1) Rome, and (2) the Jews themselves like Saul, the Sanhedrin, etc., not from the Judaizers.

The Judaizers were false teachers who attempted to influence the believers by their false teaching that they really weren't saved. We see that in Acts 15 and in the Book of Galatians. We don't see anywhere that they were so confrontational that they persecuted the believers. They were simply false teachers. Where do you get the idea that these false teachers (Judaizers) persecuted the believers? Not from Scripture. They were false teachers.

False teachers influence. That is why I answered in the manner I did.

 

The Judaizers worked among the Christians. They infiltrated Christians. They simply tried to change the message.

Here is what MacArthur says about Rev.2:9 (and 3:9) is the same.

They were not Judaizers. They were a different group of people entirely.

 

In direct answer to the OP, that there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. in those books written after that date, consider:

In the OT the Temple was rebuilt by Herod. What happened to the one before that; that Nehemiah, Ezra, Zerubbabel, and those that returned from the captivity worked on? Why doesn't the NT mention that? In fact, why doesn't the NT mention that Herod built the Temple that they were now worshiping in. Such references are absent from the NT. There was destruction and rebuilding and yet the absence of such a great event from the NT. Why should we find it odd then that they should be included (concerning the destruction of the Temple of 70 A.D.) if such events were not previously mentioned?

 

Just to take one example:
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9)

The verse is written to the believers in Ephesus. There would have been a church in Ephesus, and a synagogue in Ephesus. The warning was given to the church, and the description was given of the synagogue. Those in the synagogue said they were Jews, and like those of John chapter 8 were (by blood), "we have Abraham as our Father." But spiritually they weren't. In the gospels they rejected Christ and crucified him. Their attitude toward Christ and His followers had not changed. They were blasphemous people, just as Saul was. Their synagogues were synagogues of Satan which taught directly against Christianity. Notice "synagogue" not Temple, giving more credence that the Temple had been destroyed. Their so-called worship was in the synagogues.

 

The Jews were actively suffering persecution up until the time of Constantine when he legalized Christianity with an Act of Tolerance. It was worse in some areas than others. This wasn't Jerusalem; it was Smyrna. Why would it be so difficult to comprehend that the Jews would persecute believers in Smyrna. The destruction of the Temple only angered them more. They were dispersed into other areas like Smyrna. The population of the synagogue would have grown as their hatred for Christianity would have grown.

As mentioned before these "sons of belial" as Christ referred to them, children of the devil, would persecute them. No doubt the 10 days here is figurative. It could be a literal 10 days. It could simply mean a short duration of time. I read one place that it could refer to 10 Anti-Christian edicts given from the Emperors from the time of Nero to just before Constantine. We are not told. We are told they would be persecuted. They would be persecuted by the Jews, and in Smyrna. This is one church that is given no condemnation by Christ.

The synagogues were built during the inter-testamental period when there was no Temple. They took the place of the Temple before Herod built them a Temple. It became their temporary place of worship and especially of instruction. Even today their worship is in a synagogue, not in the Temple. When the Temple was destroyed their worship went back to the synagogues, not to the Temple where all worship should have been carried out. Remember there were no synagogues before the intertestamental period. That is a significant fact. It speaks to the carnality of the Jews. Their carnal nature grew worse; they did not grow spiritually. They were only hardened in their views toward Christs and Christianity, hence their persecution toward them would have intensified.