Good quote arguing for an early date for Revelation

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?

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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


found this....

 

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??