Matthew 24

[beameup]

Revelation was written in 96AD.  Preterists claim that all 70 "weeks" of Daniel's prophecy were completed by 40AD. 

And yet, the Temple wasn't destroyed until 70AD.  It just doesn't "add up".

[prophet1]

Revelation was written in 96AD. Preterists claim that all 70 "weeks" of Daniel's prophecy were completed by 40AD.
And yet, the Temple wasn't destroyed until 70AD. It just doesn't "add up".

Neither does 69 + 2,000 = 70.

[Invicta]

Revelation was written in 96AD.  Preterists claim that all 70 "weeks" of Daniel's prophecy were completed by 40AD. 

And yet, the Temple wasn't destroyed until 70AD.  It just doesn't "add up".

 

The destruction of the city and temple was not included in the list of six points which were included in the 70 weeks.  They were to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy  verse 24.

[Invicta]

Simply by their presence in Jerusalem the believers were "letting" the destruction, like Noah, & like Lot in Sodom.  Luke 17:26-30 , Gen 18:23-25 , Gen. 19:15-16

 

John refers to one antichrist coming, & many already being around even now (at the time of writing). 1 John 2:18-19 He doesn't name them there, so how can I? His readers, like the Thessalonians, would know who he was writing about. 

 

However, he does give a clue in Rev. 13:18 & that number can be related to Nero, then viciously persecuting Christians who refused to burn incense to the emperor. The antichristian leaders in Jerusalem were at the same time persecuting the Christians. And then the Jewish rebellion occurred, & the destruction. John re-echoes Jesus' counsel to flee the city - Jerusalem/Babylon -  before the destruction. Rev. 18:4 , Rev. 18:24 , Mat. 23:34-38 

 

It is clear from the opening verses of Revelation that the events prophesied were things which must shortly come to pass ... for the time is at hand. 

 

But as the date the words were written was sometime in the 90s the "shortly come to pass" must be after that.

[Covenanter]

But as the date the words were written was sometime in the 90s the "shortly come to pass" must be after that.

But as the subject matter relates to Jesus' Olivet prophecy, it must have been written before AD 70. 

 

Have you ANY Scripture to base a 90s date for Revelation? 

[beameup]

Neither does 69 + 2,000 = 70.

It "adds up" if you consider the Body of Christ as a separate entity from Israel.  The Body of Christ is "removed" and Israel "takes over".

One year, or a thousand years, or two thousand years - it makes no difference to God.

 

BTW, last time I checked, the Temple Institute had all things prepared for the rebuilding of the third Temple.  It's only a matter of time...

[Invicta]

But as the subject matter relates to Jesus' Olivet prophecy, it must have been written before AD 70. 

 

Have you ANY Scripture to base a 90s date for Revelation? 

 

No but there are historic references to the late date.

[Steve Schwenke]

But as the subject matter relates to Jesus' Olivet prophecy, it must have been written before AD 70. 

 

Have you ANY Scripture to base a 90s date for Revelation? 

Have you ANY Scripture to base an early date (pre - 70 AD) for the book of Revelation?

[Genevanpreacher]

Have you ANY Scripture to base an early date (pre - 70 AD) for the book of Revelation?

 

One thing - John, (or Jesus, which ever way you want to look at it), doesn't mention the destruction of the temple as occurring.

And I think it would have come into the book, in some shape or form, if such a thing had happened.

If what Jesus was talking about in the Gospels, about the Temple walls being 'leveled', had been fulfilled, John would have mentioned it.

There is no scripture that I know of, in Revelation, that would seem to mention it as happening.

[Genevanpreacher]

Have you ANY Scripture to base an early date (pre - 70 AD) for the book of Revelation?

 

In response to your question to Covenanter: A 90 AD writing would have mentioned such a grand destruction

as did happen in 70 AD. So yes, since there is the lack of any mention, there is scripture proving a pre-70 AD writing of

the book John wrote, which we know as the book of Revelation.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

In response to your question to Covenanter: A 90 AD writing would have mentioned such a grand destruction

as did happen in 70 AD. So yes, since there is the lack of any mention, there is scripture proving a pre-70 AD writing of

the book John wrote, which we know as the book of Revelation.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

The thing is, just because John did not record the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in his Revelation, does not prove that it had not taken place. 

For the book, Jesus Christ said "Write the things that thou hast seen."  If John was not in Jerusalem to see the destruction of the Temple, it stands to reason that he would not have written as one that had first-hand knowledge of it. 

So, the fact that he didn't mention it, doesn't mean it happened, or that it didn't happen... it simply means he did not see it. 

There is greater evidence that John the Revelator died after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem than before.  During the time that Jerusalem was invaded, Nero was the reigning emporor.  Nero didn't exile Christians... he killed them.  He used them as torches in his garden. 

But Domitian, who ruled after Nero and after Titus invaded Jerusalem, exiled Christians.  John was exiled to Patmos after he miraculously escaped death when he was put in a pot of boiling oil. 


 

[Genevanpreacher]

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

The thing is, just because John did not record the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in his Revelation, does not prove that it had not taken place. 

For the book, Jesus Christ said "Write the things that thou hast seen."  If John was not in Jerusalem to see the destruction of the Temple, it stands to reason that he would not have written as one that had first-hand knowledge of it. 

So, the fact that he didn't mention it, doesn't mean it happened, or that it didn't happen... it simply means he did not see it. 

There is greater evidence that John the Revelator died after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem than before.  During the time that Jerusalem was invaded, Nero was the reigning emporor.  Nero didn't exile Christians... he killed them.  He used them as torches in his garden. 

But Domitian, who ruled after Nero and after Titus invaded Jerusalem, exiled Christians.  John was exiled to Patmos after he miraculously escaped death when he was put in a pot of boiling oil. 

 

You are correct in this of course.

But I think the Lord would have pointed it out to John, if John didn't 'see it'.

It was, after all, spoken about by the Lord Jesus as something that would

occur, as per Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 19 & 21. If you believe it is the 70 AD

destruction Jesus Christ was talking about, that is.

[Covenanter]

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

The thing is, just because John did not record the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in his Revelation, does not prove that it had not taken place. 

For the book, Jesus Christ said "Write the things that thou hast seen."  If John was not in Jerusalem to see the destruction of the Temple, it stands to reason that he would not have written as one that had first-hand knowledge of it. 

So, the fact that he didn't mention it, doesn't mean it happened, or that it didn't happen... it simply means he did not see it. 

There is greater evidence that John the Revelator died after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem than before.  During the time that Jerusalem was invaded, Nero was the reigning emporor.  Nero didn't exile Christians... he killed them.  He used them as torches in his garden. 

But Domitian, who ruled after Nero and after Titus invaded Jerusalem, exiled Christians.  John was exiled to Patmos after he miraculously escaped death when he was put in a pot of boiling oil. 
 

Was John in exile on Patmos? He simply writes: I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

John did see the destruction - as yet future. Why look outside Revelation for proof of dating? Rev. 11:1-2 shows the temple still standing, & Rev. 11:8 onwards prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem. The witnesses show the characteristics of Moses & Elijah  - the Law & the Prophets that the Jewish leaders pretended allegiance to. Jesus speaks of this in his parable in Luke 16:29-31 

 

By rejecting a date for Revelation before AD 70 you are rejecting the clear opening message of the book ....  the events prophesied were things which must shortly come to pass ... for the time is at hand. 

 

The four horsemen in Rev. 6:8  predict the destruction of Jerusalem & in words prophesied also by Ezekiel: Eze. 14:21-23 where he sees also the deliverance of the godly remnant. 

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Sorry Covenanter, but Scripture refutes your argument that the Temple in Jerusalem was standing

John was in the Spirit on Patmus, not in Jerusalem. He was called up to the third Heaven, not to Jerusalem. The Temple he was to measure was future.

Revelation 4:1 (KJV) 1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

I suggest you study outside the box of Preterism. Preterism is a disgrace to the truth.

[DaveW]

Revelation 1

 1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Has anyone actually bothered to research the words and phrasing used in this verse?

I KNOW Covey hasn't. .......