Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,968

    DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION REVISITED

    Folks, I know this issue has been hashed out for centuries, and we'll probably never know the truth of when John's Revelation was written. The most popular date is believed to be about 96AD, during the reign of Flavian Domitian, the oldest son of Emperor Vespasian, who ruled as Emperor of Rome during the Jewish Revolt in 69AD. Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, were directly responsible for bringing an end to a 7 year revolt plaguing Israel, as well as restoring anarchy to the Roman Empire after suffering an intense year-long civil war from 68AD to 69AD.

    The only source which history records pertaining to the date of Revelation is from an obscured comment made by St. Iranaeus in the late 2nd century AD. But it is not certain exactly what Iranaeus meant. Was he referring to Nero Caesar's true name, "Domitius"? Was Iranaeus referring to the "vision" seen during the reign of Domitian? Or was he referring to "John" seen during the reign of Domitian? It's not certain, although a few other early church fathers up until the 4rth century accepted his opinion. But with other obvious errors found in his writings, such as the age of Jesus when He was crucified, being about fifty years of age, one can logically conclude that Iranaeus cannot be taken as factual, but more opinionated.

    The internal evidence strongly suggests a pre-70AD time-frame. We've covered this before, but John's reference to the Gentile's occupying the Holy City for 42 months or (time, times, half of time) strongly indicates the time frame of Roman occupation prior to 70AD.

    It is my opinion that the best possible way in determining the date of the book is by the letters to the seven churches of Asia.

    Some on the web records one church in particular; the Church of Laodicea, did not exist in the 90's AD. Here is what Jesus had to say about the Church of Laodicea:


    14 'And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write:
    ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 'I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
    22 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'’'


    According to some inline sources, the Church of Laodicea was destroyed by an earth quake in 62AD, and again in 66AD. It would seem likely that the wealth accumulated by the Laodicean's would have enabled them to rebuild quickly after the first earthquake in 62AD, and thus contribute to their rather haughty attitude, as denoted by Christ in His address to this church. Therefore, it would seem highly logical to assume that Revelation was written sometime between 62 and 66 AD.

    Now another point of interest is after the 2nd earth quake in 66AD, Laodicea was not rebuilt again until the reign of Marcus Aurelius, who born in 121AD to 180AD; well beyond the time frame of the theory that Revelation was written in 96AD. Why would Christ Jesus condemn a Church in Laodicea if the Church didn't exist in the 90's AD?

    Now it's uncertain if the information pertaining to the Church of Laodicea is accurate or not, but here is one source to read: http://www.pilgrimtours.com/greece/info/laodicea.htm

    In conclusion, assuming that the information is correct regarding the Church of Laodicea, it is therefore impossible for John to have written Revelation during the early 90's AD if the Church of Laodicea did not exist during the 90's AD. And because Laodicea was destroyed twice by an earthquake in the 60's AD, thus indicating it's wealth and fast restoration, it is highly possible that Revelation was written in the early to mid 60's AD.

    Joe
    Last edited by TheForgiven; 11-27-2011 at 01:29 PM.
    Israel is more than just a race; it is more than just a nation; it is the people of God, from faith, by faith, and only faith. Those who assemble in the name of Christ Jesus, embrance Israel because they are Israel

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148

    He's ALIVE!

    It's a miracle!



    Now I'll read your post ....
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,968
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    It's a miracle!



    Now I'll read your post ....
    Yep...was out of town for the Thanks Giving holiday. Then I had car troubles as usual.

    I'm back....despite possible displeasure by others on the Biblewheel.

    God bless.

    Joe
    Israel is more than just a race; it is more than just a nation; it is the people of God, from faith, by faith, and only faith. Those who assemble in the name of Christ Jesus, embrance Israel because they are Israel

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    Folks, I know this issue has been hashed out for centuries, and we'll probably never know the truth of when John's Revelation was written. The most popular date is believed to be about 96AD, during the reign of Flavian Domitian, the oldest son of Emperor Vespasian, who ruled as Emperor of Rome during the Jewish Revolt in 69AD. Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, were directly responsible for bringing an end to a 7 year revolt plaguing Israel, as well as restoring anarchy to the Roman Empire after suffering an intense year-long civil war from 68AD to 69AD.
    "Restoring anarchy" - you might want to reword that!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    The only source which history records pertaining to the date of Revelation is from an obscured comment made by St. Iranaeus in the late 2nd century AD. But it is not certain exactly what Iranaeus meant. Was he referring to Nero Caesar's true name, "Domitius"? Was Iranaeus referring to the "vision" seen during the reign of Domitian? Or was he referring to "John" seen during the reign of Domitian? It's not certain, although a few other early church fathers up until the 4rth century accepted his opinion. But with other obvious errors found in his writings, such as the age of Jesus when He was crucified, being about fifty years of age, one can logically conclude that Iranaeus cannot be taken as factual, but more opinionated.
    Yes, there are some serious problems with Irenaeus. His contention that "Jesus was fifty" is ludicrous. And how do we know he didn't make up stories about knowing Polycarp (John's disciple) merely to make points and get a comfy position in the church? People were no different then than now. Folks lose their judgment when they see the early church fathers labelled "Saint." Suddenly everything they wrote becomes "truth."

    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    The internal evidence strongly suggests a pre-70AD time-frame. We've covered this before, but John's reference to the Gentile's occupying the Holy City for 42 months or (time, times, half of time) strongly indicates the time frame of Roman occupation prior to 70AD.

    It is my opinion that the best possible way in determining the date of the book is by the letters to the seven churches of Asia.

    Some on the web records one church in particular; the Church of Laodicea, did not exist in the 90's AD. Here is what Jesus had to say about the Church of Laodicea:

    According to some inline sources, the Church of Laodicea was destroyed by an earth quake in 62AD, and again in 66AD. It would seem likely that the wealth accumulated by the Laodicean's would have enabled them to rebuild quickly after the first earthquake in 62AD, and thus contribute to their rather haughty attitude, as denoted by Christ in His address to this church. Therefore, it would seem highly logical to assume that Revelation was written sometime between 62 and 66 AD.

    Now another point of interest is after the 2nd earth quake in 66AD, Laodicea was not rebuilt again until the reign of Marcus Aurelius, who born in 121AD to 180AD; well beyond the time frame of the theory that Revelation was written in 96AD. Why would Christ Jesus condemn a Church in Laodicea if the Church didn't exist in the 90's AD?

    Now it's uncertain if the information pertaining to the Church of Laodicea is accurate or not, but here is one source to read: http://www.pilgrimtours.com/greece/info/laodicea.htm

    In conclusion, assuming that the information is correct regarding the Church of Laodicea, it is therefore impossible for John to have written Revelation during the early 90's AD if the Church of Laodicea did not exist during the 90's AD. And because Laodicea was destroyed twice by an earthquake in the 60's AD, thus indicating it's wealth and fast restoration, it is highly possible that Revelation was written in the early to mid 60's AD.

    Joe
    That's a very interesting approach. I knew that people attacked the early date by claiming that Laodicea was destroyed in 62 AD (and so could not fit the "rich" description) but they never mentioned anything about it not existing in the 90s. I'll have to check into that.

    Great post!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    Yep...was out of town for the Thanks Giving holiday. Then I had car troubles as usual.
    Ah yes. Understood. Hope you had a good one! I just had a turkey sandwich for lunch. Love that turkey.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    I'm back....despite possible displeasure by others on the Biblewheel.
    Whatchya talking about? Everyone loves TheForgiven!

    Even your nemesis!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    According to some inline sources, the Church of Laodicea was destroyed by an earth quake in 62AD, and again in 66AD. It would seem likely that the wealth accumulated by the Laodicean's would have enabled them to rebuild quickly after the first earthquake in 62AD, and thus contribute to their rather haughty attitude, as denoted by Christ in His address to this church. Therefore, it would seem highly logical to assume that Revelation was written sometime between 62 and 66 AD.

    Now another point of interest is after the 2nd earth quake in 66AD, Laodicea was not rebuilt again until the reign of Marcus Aurelius, who born in 121AD to 180AD; well beyond the time frame of the theory that Revelation was written in 96AD. Why would Christ Jesus condemn a Church in Laodicea if the Church didn't exist in the 90's AD?

    Now it's uncertain if the information pertaining to the Church of Laodicea is accurate or not, but here is one source to read: http://www.pilgrimtours.com/greece/info/laodicea.htm

    In conclusion, assuming that the information is correct regarding the Church of Laodicea, it is therefore impossible for John to have written Revelation during the early 90's AD if the Church of Laodicea did not exist during the 90's AD. And because Laodicea was destroyed twice by an earthquake in the 60's AD, thus indicating it's wealth and fast restoration, it is highly possible that Revelation was written in the early to mid 60's AD.

    Joe

    Hi Joe,

    Let me add to this discussion as to Laodicea it appears to imply that they thought that they were in no need of nothing from God. Some claim that they wouldn't have been that far advanced after the earth quake, but I'm thinking that they might not only that they were like unto the merchants and bussiness men of Laodicea that said unto themselves that they need no help from other cities to rebuild. This way of thinking is what it appears that John was told to write into them.
    Beck

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Hi Joe,

    Let me add to this discussion as to Laodicea it appears to imply that they thought that they were in no need of nothing from God. Some claim that they wouldn't have been that far advanced after the earth quake, but I'm thinking that they might not only that they were like unto the merchants and bussiness men of Laodicea that said unto themselves that they need no help from other cities to rebuild. This way of thinking is what it appears that John was told to write into them.
    That is correct. In my opinion, after the destruction of Laodicea from the first earth quake in 62AD, they (because of their accumulated wealth) rebuilt their church by themselves without the assistance of other cities, nor from Rome. And thus they were quite conceited in not having to rely on foreign assistance for the rebuilding process. And thus, Jesus rebukes them, and states, "I'm about to spit you out of my mouth". This may have been the case with their second destruction in 66AD. And unless someone can provide additional data, Laodicea would not be rebuilt again (the entire city that is) well after the 1st century during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, who was a brutal and bloody dictator. It is said that the reign of Marcus Aurelius was one of the bloodiest times for the Roman Empire (not sure about the Christians). The barbarian wars left people slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands.

    At any rate, if the Church of Laodicea did not exist in the 90's AD, having suffered two massive earthquakes in the 60's AD, then this proves that Revelation was not written during the reign of Domitian, but during the reign of Domitius (Nero).

    Joe
    Israel is more than just a race; it is more than just a nation; it is the people of God, from faith, by faith, and only faith. Those who assemble in the name of Christ Jesus, embrance Israel because they are Israel

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,968
    "Restoring anarchy" - you might want to reword that!
    OK, so Rome's glory and power was restored after having suffered an intense year long civil war during their search for a new Emperor.

    Yes, there are some serious problems with Irenaeus. His contention that "Jesus was fifty" is ludicrous. And how do we know he didn't make up stories about knowing Polycarp (John's disciple) merely to make points and get a comfy position in the church? People were no different then than now. Folks lose their judgment when they see the early church fathers labelled "Saint." Suddenly everything they wrote becomes "truth."
    That's a good point; we should probably not be referring to any of the ECF's as "Saints". Christians yes, but far from being Saints, especially considering the errors Iranaeus made with some of his ideas. I still find it quite curious as to why he was in Rome while his Church was being persecuted. Then somehow, he conveniently manages to become the next bishop. Something smells very fishy about this. I mean, we're not talking about St. Paul who appealed to Caesar. We're talking about someone who safely traveled to Rome to talk with the Emperor; meanwhile, his Church is being persecuted. It would seem that many fathers after him followed his path of ideas, and could directly be responsible for the continued confusion within the churches today; especially his mistaken idea that the Anti-Christ would come from the city "Dan". We know his prediction here failed. He then contributed to the notion of Rome being divided into 10 kingdoms, thus giving way to the modern 10 horn European Union theory. [note: Iranaeus did not teach of a future European Union just for the record; he taught that Rome would be divided into 10 kingdoms].

    At any rate, it's quite safe to assume that Iranaeus was not without many errors within his writings, INCLUDING the time frame of the writing of Revelation. I mean, isn't it a little strange that he mentions nothing of Nero Caesar? It's as though he was passive of Nero's committed atrocities.

    That's a very interesting approach. I knew that people attacked the early date by claiming that Laodicea was destroyed in 62 AD (and so could not fit the "rich" description) but they never mentioned anything about it not existing in the 90s. I'll have to check into that.

    Great post!

    I have not been able to find any proof or evidence that the Church of Laodicea existed in the 90's AD. It may have been restored well into the 2nd century, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of the church existing in the 90's, when the entire city was not rebuilt until Marcus Aurelius, which was well into the late 2nd century.

    It's good to be back folks. I look forward to many more contributions from everyone.

    God bless.

    Joe

    Richard
    Israel is more than just a race; it is more than just a nation; it is the people of God, from faith, by faith, and only faith. Those who assemble in the name of Christ Jesus, embrance Israel because they are Israel

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,114
    A church is not made up of a building. You are assuming to much about there not being a church in the area there in the 90s. I am not saying this to advocate a late day of the Writing of Revelation. All relevant evidence points to an early date of the Writing of Revelation.

    Blessings Joe
    Brother Les

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    A church is not made up of a building. You are assuming to much about there not being a church in the area there in the 90s. I am not saying this to advocate a late day of the Writing of Revelation. All relevant evidence points to an early date of the Writing of Revelation.

    Blessings Joe
    That's a good point. But the same thing goes for the argument against an early date of Revelation which was based on the assumed destruction by the earthquake in 62 C.E.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •