Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(GASP!) I'm going to have to agree with Ray and Ed on this one--that The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John was given to John (and thus written) while he was exiled on Patmos under the reign of Domitian. 
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
(GASP!) I'm going to have to agree with Ray and Ed on this one--that The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John was given to John (and thus written) while he was exiled on Patmos under the reign of Domitian.![]()
Just because Christ addressed seven doesn't mean those were the only seven. Someone once pointed out that the seven churches lied on a mail route, so Christ chose these congregations as representatives of the different strengths and weaknesses that would be in the church for all time.First, the presence of only seven churches in Asia. There was more than seven churches until a violent earthquake struck around 62-64 AD, upon which two or three were destroyed. After what was rebuilt it came to a total of exactly seven. (Read the "Seven Churches of Asia" by Sir William Ramsey for further information on this). So at the time that many MODERN day scholars insist(95-96AD) there were MANY more churches than seven in Asia.
This whole idea that the Jews were totally wiped out is just not true from any historical source. There were still Jews; Christian writers such as Justin and Tertullian debated with them; they still had their synagogues (though they were probably more undergound and hidden because of the persecution), and they still said that they were the true heirs, not Christians, and would put any Christians out of their synagogues. That is what those two references to persecution by Jews are reflecting. (and that was what he was getting at, Ray, so you can't say it was Roman persecution).Second, there is bold evidence of a persecution on some of these churches by Jewish powers, which would hardly have been possible to have been undertaken in the mid-90's AD, because the Jews would have been incapable of such acts after the fall of Jerusalem(read Josephus) because they were nearly annihilated or taken into captivity by the Roman armies in 70AD.
The 5+1+1 only works if you only include the Caesars. But how do you know that of all of the Roman Emperors before and after them, that only those bearing this name are the heads of the Beast?"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the otherhas not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while"(Rev.17:9,10).
Remember you need wisdom for this one, but you do not have to be a King Solomon to figure this one out! "Five" kings have already fallen. The one who "is" was the sixth king, who could be none other than Nero Caesar. So, at the time that John saw these visions and penned them Nero was still on the throne. Nero committed suicide around 68AD. Many chose not to include Julius Caesar in their count of kings, even though this would be against many writers and historians, namely Josephus. But no matter where you logically start your count of kings from, arriving at Domition would break even the laws of gravity!
I believe you are reading into the text. Where does it say that this is the antichrist? It doesn't. The 1st century reader would have seen something akin to the Parthian warrior, who brought terror to the minds of the Romans and all in the 'Middle East'; famous for their bows/archery skills, etc. Again, I believe St John is given to understand (same order as Mt 24)that conquest will be in the nature of fallen man and human history til the end. My critique of your view of the other horses -being a representation of the Antichrist's work- would be the same. Yet, if there is an 'Antichrist' at the end of human history -and I suspect there will be- then he will no doubt visit horrible things upon this world.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The opening of this first judgment, as in the opening of this first seal, God is introducing the antichrist who is also mentioned in 13:2.
I don't know where you get your information. Nero did not persecute Christians beyond the area of Rome. With Domitian's reign came 'worldwide' persecution of Christians. HE was the one who demanded to be called "Lord and God". Sorry, but Revelation came to St John during the 'reign' of Domitian.Originally posted by eschatologist:
The unanimous verdict of the early church is NOT that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian!
I find that the 'problem' with your view is the same 'problem' I have with those who promote 'faith alone'. With the former, again, Jesus never speaks of a 'Millenial Kingdom' or a 'secret Rapture'. With the latter, one would be hard-pressed to see Jesus promoting 'faith alone'.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Ray: Was the Lord required to include all end times events in Matthew 24 through 25?
Of course Paul's/John's/Peter's writings are fully-inspired. That's NOT my point! The point is that Jesus' words should be given the final/fullest authority, that His teachings are the 'filter' through which we view all other Scripture.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
'I was always under the true impression that not only Jesus' words but those of the Apostolate had the same force coming from Almighty God Himself. Each writer may have used his own style but the truth was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so there is absolutely no error in His Word. [II Timothy 3:16-17]
We should be under the control of His truth coming from the Book of Revelation.
The issue is NOT whether the Roman Catholic Church holds this view (basically most Orthodox and many Anglicans, and many other conservative Protestants do too), the issue is whether it is right or not. You are not so biased toward Rome that you would say that everything they teach/hold is in error are you?
You seem to think that only your objectivity is right while worlds of people disagree with your Roman Catholic, hand me down, 'kingdom now view.'
If Revelation 20's thousand years, is to be interpreted the way you do, how curious that the Lord Jesus NEVER referred to it in the Gospels. 2nd, the '1000 Years' are simply a SYMBOL of the Church Age. When Jesus returns, BAM!, that's it!
Revelation 20 speaks of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth, six times in seven verses. It must have been an important truth offered by the Lord for Him to repeat it this many times. Some people refuse to acknowledge the verity of His truth.
But He did. Read Mt.24.30-31 He says NOTHING about a Millenial Kingdom--He NEVER mentions a 1000 Kingdom. He does mention a ONE TIME Coming (not 2, as in the Premillenial scenario), and then the 'End'. Therefore, the 1000 year Kingdom MUST be symbolic, which of course, it is.Jude, if Revelation 20's thousand years, is to be interpreted the way you do, how curious that the Lord Jesus NEVER referred to it in the Gospels.
[/QB]
Should you have saidOriginally posted by Jude:
He does mention a ONE TIME Coming (not 2, as in the Premillenial scenario), ...