When Was The Revelation Written ?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

Well, if Revelation was written in the 90s A.D. that would prove preterism wrong and being wrong is what would make it heresy.

Then... I humbly submit...in the interest of open discovery wouldn't your post have been more appropriately worded thusly....

Because if it was written in the 90s A.D. then this would prove preterism wrong (the notion that Revelation was pretty much all fulfilled in 70 A.D.) which would make it a heresy; though if written in the 60s A.D. it doesn't necessarily prove the preterists right.

Not trying to be a smart alec... just asking.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Perhaps you are right. However, to remain consistent, if a late date proves preterist a heresy, obviously if a early date could be established it would prove "tradional" interpretive teachings a heresy.
Question. you said..."though if written in the 60s A.D. it doesn't necessarily prove the preterists right"
How can you have one way prove a heresy, and if it is the other way, the other view is not a heresy?

The reason for this is that the later date makes it impossible but the earlier date only makes it possible... it doesn't make it so.

I am a preterist so I am not trying be unfair I am just wanting to point out here, in all fairness, that while a later date would indeed make preterism an impossibility an earlier date would not, in and of itself, make preterism correct.

His assertion on that point is fair enough.

Originally Posted by Bowas

Obviously you are convinced you are correct regardless of the out come of this.

I must admit that portions of the wording of his post did leave me with that feeling as well.

Originally Posted by Bowas

Perhaps you are right. However, to remain consistent, if a late date proves preterist a heresy, obviously if a early date could be established it would prove "tradional" interpretive teachings a heresy.
Question. you said..."though if written in the 60s A.D. it doesn't necessarily prove the preterists right"
How can you have one way prove a heresy, and if it is the other way, the other view is not a heresy?
Obviously you are convinced you are correct regrdless of the out come of this.

Because preterism is dependent on Revelation having been written prior to 70 A.D. (since they acknowledge it is prophecy). For those who hold non-preterist views, it really doesn't matter whether it was written in the 60s A.D. or the 90s A.D. And, yes, I am certainly convinced that I'm right about preterism being proven wrong if Revelation was written in the 90s A.D. and I am convinced I'm right that if Revelation was written in the 60s A.D. it would not necessarily prove preterism was right.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Then... I humbly submit...in the interest of open discovery wouldn't your post have been more appropriately worded thusly....



Not trying to be a smart alec... just asking.

Not really. One statement is just more detailed than the other.

[KwaiQ]

I think I'm in the 'it doesn't really matter' camp on this one... but then I'm not a preterist either....

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

Not really. One statement is just more detailed than the other.

Then you do already have your mind made up?

The way you originally worded it preterism being a heresy is a given.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Then you do already have your mind made up?

The way you originally worded it preterism being a heresy is a given.

Yes, my mind is made up: if Revelation was written in the 90s A.D. then that means preterism is wrong and, therefore, heresy.

[pelathais]

This is my first post so please excuse me if I seem nervous.

I agree with Chan's opinion about the timing of the Apocalypse and the implications of that timing. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that preterism is a "heresy" though. I just don't happen to agree with it. Unlike some Oneness organizations; I don't see it as being "dangerous." It's just a different viewpoint from mine, that's all.

On the matter of "tradition" being the source of dating for Revelation, consider that it is "tradition" that we rely upon to tell us that the John of Revelation was the same person as "John the brother of James" in the gospels. Tradition is not always reliable, but sometimes it's all we've got.

When it comes to the "traditional" dating of the Apocalypse we in fact have some history. Irenaeus of Lyon (in Gaul) was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a contemporary of John of Ephesus who by tradition was the same John as the one in the gospels. According to the historical writings of Irenaeus, the Apocalypse was written late in the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (r. AD 81 - 96).

Nero's persecution was limited to the Christians in and near Rome itself. Nero's act, though terrible, was also something of a one-shot deal, not a lengthy hunting down of believers throughout the empire. For these reasons I don't associate the Book of Revelation with Nero's time (late 60's).

Also, compare Revelation 11:1, (where John measures the temple) and the verses following with Ezekiel 40:1, and following. In Ezekiel we find the prophet commiserating about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians when he sees a vision involving the measuring of the now destroyed temple in Jerusalem. This is obviously intended as a message of consolation - the prophet is receiving the measurements despite the fact that the temple itself no longer exists. The good news here is that there will be a rebirth and renewal of the temple worship in the future.

I see this as a parallel to John's vision, a parallel that was very much done on purpose. In my view, one of John's missions was to prepare the church for rebirth and renewal despite the persecutions and he harkens deliberately to something that God had already successfully accomplished for His people in the past. This parallel of written metaphor, IMHO of course, places the Book of Revelation into the historical context of post-destruction Jerusalem (post- 70 AD).

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This is my first post so please excuse me if I seem nervous.

I agree with Chan's opinion about the timing of the Apocalypse and the implications of that timing. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that preterism is a "heresy" though. I just don't happen to agree with it. Unlike some Oneness organizations; I don't see it as being "dangerous." It's just a different viewpoint from mine, that's all.

On the matter of "tradition" being the source of dating for Revelation, consider that it is "tradition" that we rely upon to tell us that the John of Revelation was the same person as "John the brother of James" in the gospels. Tradition is not always reliable, but sometimes it's all we've got.

When it comes to the "traditional" dating of the Apocalypse we in fact have some history. Irenaeus of Lyon (in Gaul) was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a contemporary of John of Ephesus who by tradition was the same John as the one in the gospels. According to the historical writings of Irenaeus, the Apocalypse was written late in the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (r. AD 81 - 96).

Nero's persecution was limited to the Christians in and near Rome itself. Nero's act, though terrible, was also something of a one-shot deal, not a lengthy hunting down of believers throughout the empire. For these reasons I don't associate the Book of Revelation with Nero's time (late 60's).

Also, compare Revelation 11:1, (where John measures the temple) and the verses following with Ezekiel 40:1, and following. In Ezekiel we find the prophet commiserating about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians when he sees a vision involving the measuring of the now destroyed temple in Jerusalem. This is obviously intended as a message of consolation - the prophet is receiving the measurements despite the fact that the temple itself no longer exists. The good news here is that there will be a rebirth and renewal of the temple worship in the future.

I see this as a parallel to John's vision, a parallel that was very much done on purpose. In my view, one of John's missions was to prepare the church for rebirth and renewal despite the persecutions and he harkens deliberately to something that God had already successfully accomplished for His people in the past. This parallel of written metaphor, IMHO of course, places the Book of Revelation into the historical context of post-destruction Jerusalem (post- 70 AD).

Why is this "Good News?" The Gospel of Jesus Christ is THE GOOD NEWS. For Temple anything to be revived is an attempt to restore what Jesus came to fulfill, and to make His death (Good News i.e. Gospel) of non affect.
We must be very careful in attempting to Judaize the Apostolic movement.
They ALL need THE GOOD NEWS! Christ and Him crucufied, Acts 2:38. Right?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Why is this "Good News?" The Gospel of Jesus Christ is THE GOOD NEWS. For Temple anything to be revived is an attempt to restore what Jesus came to fulfill, and to make His death (Good News i.e. Gospel) of non affect.
We must be very careful in attempting to Judaize the Apostolic movement.
They ALL need THE GOOD NEWS! Christ and Him crucufied, Acts 2:38. Right?

He didn't say that was THE good news. THE good news is what you said, but that does not preclude other events from being good news. Let's not nit pick here ok?