Good quote arguing for an early date for Revelation

[asterisktom]

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated?" - A.N. Wilson, on the reason for a pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation

This points to a pre AD 70 date, not only for Revelation, but for all the other books of the New Testament.

Just as it It would have been criminal to pretend the WW2 Holocaust didn't happen (in Germany this is literally the case, treated as a crime) so this 1st-century omission would likewise have been very unusual. For inspired writers (supposedly writing after the event) to neglect even the mention of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable.

 

[JesusFan]

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated?" - A.N. Wilson, on the reason for a pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation

This points to a pre AD 70 date, not only for Revelation, but for all the other books of the New Testament.

Just as it It would have been criminal to pretend the WW2 Holocaust didn't happen (in Germany this is literally the case, treated as a crime) so this 1st-century omission would likewise have been very unusual. For inspired writers (supposedly writing after the event) to neglect even the mention of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable.

Bigger question is why, IF Jesus actually had the Second Coming back in AD 70, that NO NT author proclaimed it, nor ANY historian recorded it?

 

[DHK]

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated?" - A.N. Wilson, on the reason for a pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation

This points to a pre AD 70 date, not only for Revelation, but for all the other books of the New Testament.

Just as it It would have been criminal to pretend the WW2 Holocaust didn't happen (in Germany this is literally the case, treated as a crime) so this 1st-century omission would likewise have been very unusual. For inspired writers (supposedly writing after the event) to neglect even the mention of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable.

Just an opinion without any basis in fact. The purpose of the book is apocalyptic, not historical.

 

[asterisktom]

Just an opinion without any basis in fact. The purpose of the book is apocalyptic, not historical.

There are plenty of historical references in it. Moreover this quote affects all of the books that are purportedly written after AD 70. John's other writings, often nowadays assumed to have been written in the 80s or 90s, likewise make no mention of this cataclysmic event. Certainly he should have mentioned something about this, at the very least in an aside when dealing with the Temple as he does.

There are other scholars who date the other Gospels after AD 70. But most conservatives date those others, the Synoptics, earlier than AD 70 for this same reason of the great event.

 

[asterisktom]

Bigger question is why, IF Jesus actually had the Second Coming back in AD 70, that NO NT author proclaimed it,

My very point.

nor ANY historian recorded it?

Uhh. It was recorded. My other point.

 

[revmwc]

Just an opinion without any basis in fact. The purpose of the book is apocalyptic, not historical.

Let's see Revelation written to the seven churches why not the eight, the one at Jerusalem that had been the missionary church. Sending through it Paul, Barnabus, Silas, John Mark and many others out? Could it be maybe Jerusalem didn't exist anymore? Why just those seven? There were others in that area, maybe because they repesented the churches in that area and yet Jerusalem church is not mentioned. Gee we can bring all types of what if scenarios into this. The gospel of John doesn't say that Jesus prediction of the temple being destroyed was fulfilled in fact John doesn't even mention the prophecy, maybe because it had already occured when the Gospel was written as many believe between 90 to 100 A.D. and many set the Apostles death at 100 A.D. or close to that.
Isn't it amazing how well we can speculate on things. Scripture remains constant and as long as we can go back to the greek and hebrew we can usually with a good concordence find the truth of scripture if we let the Holy Spirit be our guide.

 

[JesusFan]

My very point.


Uhh. It was recorded. My other point.

When the NT Books were written, NONE of them mentioned Second Coming as already happened, all saw it as a future event to all of them...

And Revelation tells us that WHEN the event happens, Second Coming of Christ, that will be sudden and quickly, NOT that the event from time of writting was soon to pass, but that when it did happen, would quickly happen...

james saw Jesus "right at the door", John said it was 'soon to occur/coming quickly"

refering to that WHEN jesus comes back, everything prophecied would haoppen quickly, but his return has been imminent past 2000 years!

 

[J.D.]

Let's see Revelation written to the seven churches why not the eight, the one at Jerusalem that had been the missionary church. Sending through it Paul, Barnabus, Silas, John Mark and many others out? Could it be maybe Jerusalem didn't exist anymore? Why just those seven? There were others in that area, maybe because they repesented the churches in that area and yet Jerusalem church is not mentioned. Gee we can bring all types of what if scenarios into this. The gospel of John doesn't say that Jesus prediction of the temple being destroyed was fulfilled in fact John doesn't even mention the prophecy, maybe because it had already occured when the Gospel was written as many believe between 90 to 100 A.D. and many set the Apostles death at 100 A.D. or close to that.
Isn't it amazing how well we can speculate on things. Scripture remains constant and as long as we can go back to the greek and hebrew we can usually with a good concordence find the truth of scripture if we let the Holy Spirit be our guide.

If I understand you correctly, you are implying that:

[church not mentioned] = [church destroyed]

If that were the case, then all the churches not mentioned were destroyed in 70 a.d.? How about Antioch? After all, John did not list it among the seven. There were ONLY 7 churches after 70 a.d.?

Also, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. had everythign to do with the temple, and nothing to do with the church other than Jesus' promise to saved his disciples from the destruction, which He indeed did.

 

[asterisktom]

Let's see Revelation written to the seven churches why not the eight, the one at Jerusalem that had been the missionary church. Sending through it Paul, Barnabus, Silas, John Mark and many others out? Could it be maybe Jerusalem didn't exist anymore?

Could it be you are second-guessing God?
Why not the church at Corinth? It was still around.
Why not that of Romans?
Why not stick with Scripture and reasonable deductions?

 

[asterisktom]

When the NT Books were written, NONE of them mentioned Second Coming as already happened, all saw it as a future event to all of them...

Because from the standpoint of all those Books it was a future event. All those books were written pre AD 70.

 

[revmwc]

If I understand you correctly, you are implying that:

[church not mentioned] = [church destroyed]

If that were the case, then all the churches not mentioned were destroyed in 70 a.d.? How about Antioch? After all, John did not list it among the seven. There were ONLY 7 churches after 70 a.d.?

Also, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. had everythign to do with the temple, and nothing to do with the church other than Jesus' promise to saved his disciples from the destruction, which He indeed did.

You misunderstood I said the letter to those seven churches meant the others would pass them on and that represented them. However since the church at Jerusalem had been the central church for all since it was not mentioned did that mean it no longer existed. Or that Jerusalem no longer existed. James wrote to the dispersed ones, those Jews who had left Jerusalem and were now dispersed in the world. The theory of the Preterist is Jesus came in 70 A.D. for the church and to set up His Kingdom which instead of on earth is now in heaven, so techniquely there would be no church today at all under that teaching. Paul said in 1 Thessalonians that the dead in Christ would rise first, and those who were alive and remained would meet them in the air, by the preterist teaching that occured in 70 A.D. that was the bride being taken home. John in Revelation taught Christ would come back defeat the beast and false prophet and cast them in the lake of fire, that too is already supposed to have occured according to the preterist. So in that scenario we really don't exist today because there is no more prophecy to fulfill. No O.T. prophecy and everything prophisied for the church has occured according to the 70 A.D. theory. So there really isn't a church nor will any of us go to heaven or be taken up because everything was fulfilled in 70 A.D. that was prophsied, that is the teaching of the Preterist. All prohecy O.T. and N.T. is fuflfilled. So we won't be going anywhere or see any judgement under that theory.

 

[revmwc]

Could it be you are second-guessing God?
Why not the church at Corinth? It was still around.
Why not that of Romans?
Why not stick with Scripture and reasonable deductions?

I am just following your pattern of thinking for this thread or for the guy you quoted. If there is no concrete and inescable reference we would not expect the writers to make it clear. Sticking to scripture is what I normally do but since there was no scriptural reference to the below and was a rambling of what ifs I followed the pattern.

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated?" - A.N. Wilson, on the reason for a pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation

This points to a pre AD 70 date, not only for Revelation, but for all the other books of the New Testament.

Just as it It would have been criminal to pretend the WW2 Holocaust didn't happen (in Germany this is literally the case, treated as a crime) so this 1st-century omission would likewise have been very unusual. For inspired writers (supposedly writing after the event) to neglect even the mention of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable.

 

[asterisktom]

Just an opinion without any basis in fact. The purpose of the book is apocalyptic, not historical.

Speaking of Revelation and history: Have you taken Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 into consideration?

8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write,
‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: 9 “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:[c] 8 “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it;[d] for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. 9 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. 10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11 Behold,[e] I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.

Supposedly written in the 90s, the Jews would no longer be a menace for the Christians in Smyrna and Jerusalem. If you have read Tacitus and Josephus, the latter especially, you would know that the Jews were not just militarily defeated at Jerusalem; They were themselves afflicted in retribution (just as Paul promised the Thessalonians) throughout the Roman Empire. From Libya and Cyrene all the way across the Empire, Asia Minor and Europe - wherever there were Jewish political strongholds - they had their power taken away.

So there is no way they could have had this power that is described here in Revelation. But it fits very well with what was going on in the 60s. The Jews had already rebelled from Rome and, along with other nations at this opportune time, were making all the trouble they could.

Certainly included in this trouble was giving vent to the animosity they harbored toward Christianity.

 

[DHK]

There are plenty of historical references in it. Moreover this quote affects all of the books that are purportedly written after AD 70. John's other writings, often nowadays assumed to have been written in the 80s or 90s, likewise make no mention of this cataclysmic event. Certainly he should have mentioned something about this, at the very least in an aside when dealing with the Temple as he does.

There are other scholars who date the other Gospels after AD 70. But most conservatives date those others, the Synoptics, earlier than AD 70 for this same reason of the great event.

Other conservatives, most of them, date all of John's works in the 90's. I have never heard otherwise. I don't know where you get your information from.
Here is what MacArthur's Commentary says:

Revelation was written in the last decade (c. A.D. 94-96), near the end of Emperor Domitian's reign (A.D. 81-96). Although some date it during Nero's reign (A.D. 54-68), their argument are unconvincing and conflict with the view of the early church...

Every conservative commentary I have ever picked up says something similar. Macarthur has a lot more to say on the subject referring to the actual ECF.

 

[asterisktom]

Other conservatives, most of them, date all of John's works in the 90's. I have never heard otherwise. I don't know where you get your information from.
Here is what MacArthur's Commentary says:

Every conservative commentary I have ever picked up says something similar. Macarthur has a lot more to say on the subject referring to the actual ECF.

I never said that these conservative commentaries dated John at an earlier date. I agree that they do date John's writings in the 90s.

But my point is that they really should not do so. For two reasons:
1. There are events and descriptions that are missing from those writings of John, like the events of AD 70.
2. There are events and descriptions that are present in those writings of John that should not be there, like the problems that those Jews were causing.

No need to quote MacArthur as an authority for your argument. I understand you value him as an authority. I definitely do not.

Your second quote of him goes counter to the actual facts of the case, as shown by that web site I linked earlier. People nowadays can say whatever they want - just like JM does so glibly and dogmatically - because they know that most Christians do not double check the sources.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Speaking of Revelation and history: Have you taken Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 into consideration?

8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write,
‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: 9 “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:[c] 8 “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it;[d] for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. 9 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. 10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11 Behold,[e] I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.

Supposedly written in the 90s, the Jews would no longer be a menace for the Christians in Smyrna and Jerusalem. If you have read Tacitus and Josephus, the latter especially, you would know that the Jews were not just militarily defeated at Jerusalem; They were themselves afflicted in retribution (just as Paul promised the Thessalonians) throughout the Roman Empire. From Libya and Cyrene all the way across the Empire, Asia Minor and Europe - wherever there were Jewish political strongholds - they had their power taken away.

Not wholly true, even in Palestine. The Jews were strong enough to have another go at the Romans in 132-6 (the Bar Cochba Revolt) and cause heavy casualties among the legions. Jewish hatred for Christians grew rather than diminished after AD 70 because the Christians had fled from Jerusalem instead of fighting with their Jewish compatriots. Some time around AD 80, curses against the Christians became a regular part of Synagogue prayers, so it is very likely that there would have been tension (to say the least) between church and synagogue in many areas (see The Spreading Flame by F. F. Bruce).

Steve

 

[asterisktom]

On further reflection I think I was being a little unfair with my assessment of MacArthur. I should change my sentence to read:

"People nowadays can say whatever they want - just like JM does so dogmatically. The sad fact is that most Christians do not double check the sources."

As much as I dislike MacArthur I shouldn't impugn motives against him. I do believe that he is often dogmatic, but glibness is more of a motive probe that I shouldn't do.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIB9-mbntww&feature=related


found this....

 

[DHK]

But my point is that they really should not do so. For two reasons:
1. There are events and descriptions that are missing from those writings of John, like the events of AD 70.
2. There are events and descriptions that are present in those writings of John that should not be there, like the problems that those Jews were causing.

So you know better than the Holy Spirit? God wrote the Book. You know better than what the Holy Spirit inspired John to either omit or put in according to the sovereign dictates of God. I thought you believed in the sovereign grace of God. Whatever happened to that belief. Has the pendulum totally swung the other way that John had complete free will to write whatever he wanted. Is that ever a change. We have a convert to Arminianism on our board!!!

"Events that are present that should not be there??" According to who? You? You are playing the part of God again. You are denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; denying the sovereign grace of God, and leaving the complete onus of the contents of the Revelation of John up to John himself--his total free will, what he should include and what he should not. God is shut out of this picture completely. Now, this is more of a picture of a humanist than one who is a believer. Those who have trusted God trust Him to do the right thing. A humanist says that the Bible is like a story book written by man and has no more inspiration than any other book, which you seem to be saying. Didn't God have any input into this book at all??

 

[asterisktom]

So you know better than the Holy Spirit?

Of course not. But God gives us a brain, and He enables us to use it in discussing His Word.

You know, the more I read this the more I feel, well, sorry for you. I will pray for you.

One thing is sure. There is no room for discussion here, not with you and your attitude.