The date of the Book of Revelation

Maybe around 98 AD.

 

MORE internal evidence:

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: 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. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Mt 23:34-36

And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18:24

 

or that it would exist today?

 

.....she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall in no wise see mourning. Rev 18:7

She is no queen, and she is indeed a widow; she killed her husband Christ the King. And she has seen much mourning over the last two millenia.

 

John saw (59 times in 56 verses) it in a vision. Chapter 22 confirms that what John saw was prophecy yet unfulfilled (isn't that what this dating debate is really about?). If John was told to measure the Temple in a vision, it doesn't mean the Temple was there at that time on the earth. It means that just like Ezekiel did, he was to measure the Temple he was shown in the vision, not one standing on earth.

To show you how objective I am, I also don't consider the "internal" evidence offered by late daters that the Church at Smyrna didn't exist in the 60's. It's supported by unverifiable external evidence. The best solution is that it doesn't matter when John wrote Revelation. If I stand on my eschatological position, I want it planted securely on internal (Scriptural) evidence and not on what somebody says about that Scripture.

 

That same language is used in prophecy concerning Babylon in Isaiah 47.

Isaiah 47:7-9 - "And thou saidst, I shall be a lady forever: so that thou didst not lay these things to thy heart, neither didst remember the latter end of it. Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: But these two things shall come upon thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments."

This was literally fullfilled when Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians. It was suddenly, in a moment. The lady of kingdoms fell in a single night. The king, Belshazzar, was killed that night. Her children were no more hers, but now belonged to the Median-Persian empire. There is much allusion to this in Revelation 18. To me that doesn't work for Jerusalem. For one thing, the merchants of the earth didn't stand afar off and mourn for her when she fell. For another, the Jews might end up rebuilding their temple in Jerusalem one day. This language seems to favor a final destuction on the city in Rev 18.

Maybe I'm wrong though. I just can't quite buy Jerusalem there.

 

I'm sorry Brother, but we must agree to disagree on this one:

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.

There's actually FOUR points of comparison here, Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem. Therein lies some astounding similes with what transpired during the wrath that came upon 'that generation'. You might find it interesting to know that while several prophecies are given in the OT concerning the destruction of Babylon, Babylon was never destroyed as described. It remained a viable city up until the eighth century A.D. when the river Euphrates changed course and left it sitting high and dry. Babylon faded away, it did not meet with the violent destruction as described. But those OT prophecies concerning Babylon very aptly describe what happened during the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus the term, Mystery Babylon?

 

I don't deny that the city in Revelation 11 is Jerusalem. I deny that the city in Revelation 18 is.

One problem that I have with Mystery, Babylon the great, mother of harlots and abominations of the earth being Jerusalem is there was rejoicing over her destruction. There wasn't rejoicing over the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus Himself wept over the city saying, "if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hit from thine eyes." He also lamented, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ..." I just can't quite buy the destruction of Jerusalem being a joyous occasion, even though they had persecuted God's people. It was a solemn occasion, and one that demands reflection from us today lest we follow after their sad example of disobedience. When I see the Jewish people today praying before the last remaining wall of the temple complex I don't rejoice, I'm saddened by their blindness and am reminded of the severity and goodness of God, severity on them that fell, but toward us goodness.

One more thing, Jerusalem wasn't finally destroyed. There it sits today as an inhabited city. Meanwhile the city of Babylon is all ruins. I do think that much prophecy of Babylon's fall, which was fullfilled in the past, also foreshadows the fall of Babylon the Great from Revelation 18, but I don't think that has happened yet.

 

I don't know how far to go with this, I'm certain I'll not change your mind, and I don't wish to argue over it. Your comments on this?:

…..it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Lu 13:33

And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18:24

 

I don't wish to argue, just discuss.

Is Jerusalem the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth? Did the kings of the earth committ fornication with her and were the inhabitants of the earth made drunk with the wine of her fornication? The Jews wanted nothing to do with the Gentiles and hated the Roman Empire, which seems to be pointed at by the beast the woman is riding. Was Jerusalem drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus Christ? They did persecute the church of God, but did so thinking they did God service. Would John have marvelled at Jerusalem's persecution of Christians? He lived under it. He was beaten and threatened by the religious rulers of the Jews.

Again, we disagree on this and that is fine. I'm not going to be too dogmatic on this, and I see you aren't either. I just desire a good discussion. I just can't, at this time, buy Jerusalem fitting this.

 

OK, I'm game, but I'd like to move this discussion to here if it's OK with you:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=65141

This discussion is pertinent to my 'Seven Heads' thread (and off topic on this thread), which I've been intending to get back to anyway, and the Harlot of ch 17 and the Woman of ch 12 were next to be brought up.

I'm interested in your thoughts concerning posts #14,15,16.

 

For those who are interested in this topic:

http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...ory&id=40:revelation&Itemid=61&layout=default

 

Are you certain of the factualness of that? Many of the ECF held to some Preteristic views (although it wasn't called by that label).

Why would that concern you RB? You think it's not possible that we should actually know MORE truth today than those a century ago, or 2 or 10 or 19 centuries ago? What do you think is meant here?:

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
10 Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but they that are wise shall understand. Dan 12

I think the knowledge referred here to is of the scripture.

Here's a 'taste' of the Historical view concerning the Seven Heads:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1531193#post1531193

I hold to much of the Historicist view on Revelation (actually more than I realized) along with the Preterist and Idealist view, and even some Futurist take.

 

I had preteristic leanings/wonderings long before I'd even heard the word preterist and before I had ever read any commentary on it.

I believe the papacy fits nicely into the revived 'Holy Roman Empire' of the Ten Horns of the seventh head made up of those Germanic peoples. IMO, we've been in the seventh head for at least 1500 years or longer.

By that I take it to mean that you believe the preterists today have been decieved by the RCC?

 

Back to the OP:

Clement of Alexandria
TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS
(c.150- 215)


(On the Timing of John's Banishment)
"And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant (previously identified as Nero) he removed from the island of’ Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?, Section 42)

[I know this is more external evidence RB, but I doubt you're going to seriously consider any of the Jesuit-free internal evidences that I've already provided]