A PP brief descriptions of each chapter of Revelation Part 1

[David Taylor]

I held that view as possible for awhile, but could not hold it up against the larger consensus that Revelation was written *after* 70 AD. Your view fit so well that I adopted it. I just feel more comfortable taking the more conventional view. But I'm open.

I would like to see a new thread on the consensus of the writing date of Revelation.

Here is what I have found.

Irenaeus wrote a line that depending on how you interpret his intent; could either seem to point to late or early date.

It seems that everyone else who provides a 'late date' concensus, uses Irenaeus or someone else who used Irenaeus and assumed the late date interpretation of his verse.

There are others out there in the ECF besides Irenaeus, that do give an early date consensus.

THe book itself has more early date than late date concensus. (but that is a different topic).

I would really like to see other ECF sources besides Irenaeus; who independently taught a later date.

I agree with you Randy, that the largest amount of concensus says late, but most of them from what I see, are just re-quoting Iraneus from a late interpreation of his verse; or somone who quoted him. Im not sure I agree with concensus, just because everyone says so. When you do that, you create myths and fables that everyone can grab onto that really arent true; but get accepted because of the numbers of adherents that didn't carefully investigate the history and the record of the early writings.

[randyk]

I would like to see a new thread on the consensus of the writing date of Revelation.

Here is what I have found.

Irenaeus wrote a line that depending on how you interpret his intent; could either seem to point to late or early date.

It seems that everyone else who provides a 'late date' concensus, uses Irenaeus or someone else who used Irenaeus and assumed the late date interpretation of his verse.

There are others out there in the ECF besides Irenaeus, that do give an early date consensus.

THe book itself has more early date than late date concensus. (but that is a different topic).

I would really like to see other ECF sources besides Irenaeus; who independently taught a later date.

I agree with you Randy, that the largest amount of concensus says late, but most of them from what I see, are just re-quoting Iraneus from a late interpreation of his verse; or somone who quoted him. Im not sure I agree with concensus, just because everyone says so. When you do that, you create myths and fables that everyone can grab onto that really arent true; but get accepted because of the numbers of adherents that didn't carefully investigate the history and the record of the early writings.

I would sincerely love to have it proved that Revelation has the early date. It would make things much more simple in the way I view Revelation. I really lack information to prove it myself one way or the other, so I tend to go for the consensus late date. But I agree--that doesn't make it right. If you find more to prove an early date, I'm all ears!

[marty fox]

I would like to see a new thread on the consensus of the writing date of Revelation.

Here is what I have found.

Irenaeus wrote a line that depending on how you interpret his intent; could either seem to point to late or early date.

It seems that everyone else who provides a 'late date' concensus, uses Irenaeus or someone else who used Irenaeus and assumed the late date interpretation of his verse.

There are others out there in the ECF besides Irenaeus, that do give an early date consensus.

THe book itself has more early date than late date concensus. (but that is a different topic).

I would really like to see other ECF sources besides Irenaeus; who independently taught a later date.

I agree with you Randy, that the largest amount of concensus says late, but most of them from what I see, are just re-quoting Iraneus from a late interpreation of his verse; or somone who quoted him. Im not sure I agree with concensus, just because everyone says so. When you do that, you create myths and fables that everyone can grab onto that really arent true; but get accepted because of the numbers of adherents that didn't carefully investigate the history and the record of the early writings.

I think the bible is all we need to prove it as revelation is the revelation of Jesus and what HE did and Jesus ushered in the new covenant

Revelation is a book of transition a transition from the old covenant to the new covenant and a transition from the earthly Jerusalem to the new Jerusalem the Jerusalem from above

[randyk]

I think the bible is all we need to prove it as revelation is the revelation of Jesus and what HE did and Jesus ushered in the new covenant

Revelation is a book of transition a transition from the old covenant to the new covenant and a transition from the earthly Jerusalem to the new Jerusalem the Jerusalem from above

I can certainly agree with that. But this says nothing about when the Revelation was written. I accept the book as inspired, as Scripture, and as authoritative. The problem is, we have to somehow navigate all of the symbolism and determine what is being authoritatively taught!

[randyk]

Marty, I enjoyed reading through your PP position. As logical as it is, I remain inclined towards futurism. I think Dan 7 speaks of a 3.5 year period at the end of the age, just prior to Christ's return.

Another thing I found confusing was that the 144,000 in ch. 7 is described as a believing remnant of Israel, whereas the same 144,000 in ch. 14 is described as being the whole Church. Don't you find this inconsistent? Thanks.

[marty fox]

I can certainly agree with that. But this says nothing about when the Revelation was written. I accept the book as inspired, as Scripture, and as authoritative. The problem is, we have to somehow navigate all of the symbolism and determine what is being authoritatively taught!

But it does because it would of had to of been written before 70AD because it was about to happen

[marty fox]

Marty, I enjoyed reading through your PP position. As logical as it is, I remain inclined towards futurism. I think Dan 7 speaks of a 3.5 year period at the end of the age, just prior to Christ's return.

Another thing I found confusing was that the 144,000 in ch. 7 is described as a believing remnant of Israel, whereas the same 144,000 in ch. 14 is described as being the whole Church. Don't you find this inconsistent? Thanks.

As you know I see Daniel 7 as AE which also has a 3 1/2 year time period to match history could you not see it as Nero’s 3 1/2 year persecution?

I see what you are saying but this was a short form to his whole study which had more detail but


I personally see the 144 000 as the whole church I think he was just showing the reason for the names that were and were not mentioned

I plan to do one of these of my own views which have a couple of small differences

[marty fox]

I would like to see a new thread on the consensus of the writing date of Revelation.

Here is what I have found.

Irenaeus wrote a line that depending on how you interpret his intent; could either seem to point to late or early date.

It seems that everyone else who provides a 'late date' concensus, uses Irenaeus or someone else who used Irenaeus and assumed the late date interpretation of his verse.

There are others out there in the ECF besides Irenaeus, that do give an early date consensus.

THe book itself has more early date than late date concensus. (but that is a different topic).

I would really like to see other ECF sources besides Irenaeus; who independently taught a later date.

I agree with you Randy, that the largest amount of concensus says late, but most of them from what I see, are just re-quoting Iraneus from a late interpreation of his verse; or somone who quoted him. Im not sure I agree with concensus, just because everyone says so. When you do that, you create myths and fables that everyone can grab onto that really arent true; but get accepted because of the numbers of adherents that didn't carefully investigate the history and the record of the early writings.

I personally don’t get into the early church fathers when debating because they are not biblical authority and are subject to human mistakes like Iraneus mistake about Jesus age

I have one book that mentions an early church father stating John chasing hastily on horse back pleading with someone to come back to the faith which is stated of happening after Johns exile to Patmos. The writer was asking If it makes sense to of John To of done this in his 90’s or his 60’s?

[randyk]

As you know I see Daniel 7 as AE which also has a 3 1/2 year time period to match history could you not see it as Nero’s 3 1/2 year persecution?

Right, we disagree on this. I see Dan 7 as a reference to the Antichrist. It is the only OT reference to the Antichrist. Otherwise, Paul would have no basis for writing about the Antichrist, which was future for Paul. It was also future for John.

Also, the 3.5 years of Dan 7 is the basis for the 3.5 year periods mentioned in the book of Revelation. If Dan 7 is about a future Antichrist and his 3.5 year reign, then the book of Revelation is also about the Antichrist and a future 3.5 year reign.

[marty fox]

Right, we disagree on this. I see Dan 7 as a reference to the Antichrist. It is the only OT reference to the Antichrist. Otherwise, Paul would have no basis for writing about the Antichrist, which was future for Paul. It was also future for John.

Also, the 3.5 years of Dan 7 is the basis for the 3.5 year periods mentioned in the book of Revelation. If Dan 7 is about a future Antichrist and his 3.5 year reign, then the book of Revelation is also about the Antichrist and a future 3.5 year reign.

Paul would have reason to write about the antichrist as Paul was taken up to heaven and shown many things so they could be different times

[randyk]

Paul would have reason to write about the antichrist as Paul was taken up to heaven and shown many things so they could be different times

That could be. However, it seems more reasonable to me that Paul based his beliefs about the Antichrist on Dan 7, where Christ comes after 3.5 years of Antichristian reign to destroy him. Those are the kinds of words Paul uses in 2 Thes 2.

You see, my beliefs are based on the idea that theology of the Antichrist begins in Dan 7, and is then the basis for Christ's view of the Coming of the Son of Man. I'm not saying that Christ doesn't "come" in a sense in 70 AD--he certainly did come in judgment.

But the idea of the "Coming of the Son of Man" generally refers to the eschatological return of Christ, based on Dan 7. The Antichrist rules for 3.5 years. The Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven. And he establishes the Kingdom of God on earth.

[marty fox]

That could be. However, it seems more reasonable to me that Paul based his beliefs about the Antichrist on Dan 7, where Christ comes after 3.5 years of Antichristian reign to destroy him. Those are the kinds of words Paul uses in 2 Thes 2.

You see, my beliefs are based on the idea that theology of the Antichrist begins in Dan 7, and is then the basis for Christ's view of the Coming of the Son of Man. I'm not saying that Christ doesn't "come" in a sense in 70 AD--he certainly did come in judgment.

But the idea of the "Coming of the Son of Man" generally refers to the eschatological return of Christ, based on Dan 7. The Antichrist rules for 3.5 years. The Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven. And he establishes the Kingdom of God on earth.

But the coming of the son of man in Daniel 7 was too heaven not too the earth. So The direction Jesus was traveling in Daniel 7 was too heaven as He was given His authority which matches what happened after His acention in Revalation 12

[randyk]

But the coming of the son of man in Daniel 7 was too heaven not too the earth. So The direction Jesus was traveling in Daniel 7 was too heaven as He was given His authority which matches what happened after His acention in Revalation 12

Yes, I understand that argument. I admit that the Son of Man, in Dan 7, appears to be involved in a judicial proceeding at his coming with the clouds. But I see this as a parenthetical explanation for his coming. He comes to bring God's judgment against the Antichrist and in favor of the saints. In other words, this is not a strict chronology, but rather, an explanation for his Coming.

So I suppose you have to decide what fits best for you? For me, the context is all about Christ's descent from the clouds to establish God's Kingdom on earth. And that is the way the *entire NT* seems to interpret it, as a new earth, a new kingdom, a new reality. Jesus is coming back to establish God's Kingdom on earth. In doing so, he comes to destroy the Antichrist in favor of the Church after 3.5 years of Antichristian rule.

But I do understand your argument...

[marty fox]

Yes, I understand that argument. I admit that the Son of Man, in Dan 7, appears to be involved in a judicial proceeding at his coming with the clouds. But I see this as a parenthetical explanation for his coming. He comes to bring God's judgment against the Antichrist and in favor of the saints. In other words, this is not a strict chronology, but rather, an explanation for his Coming.

So I suppose you have to decide what fits best for you? For me, the context is all about Christ's descent from the clouds to establish God's Kingdom on earth. And that is the way the *entire NT* seems to interpret it, as a new earth, a new kingdom, a new reality. Jesus is coming back to establish God's Kingdom on earth. In doing so, he comes to destroy the Antichrist in favor of the Church after 3.5 years of Antichristian rule.

But I do understand your argument...

Read Matthew 26:57-68 when Jesus refers back to His coming on the clouds in Daniel 7

What is the topic there in Matthew 26?

There is no mention of His coming to judge the antichrist in Matthew 26 but it is about the destruction of the temple

Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple and Jesus states that the Pharisees would see it and only then would they realize that He is the one coming on the clouds in Daniel 7 and they knew what He was claiming that’s why they shouted blastophmey and then killed HIm

Jesus ties the destruction of the temple to His coming on the clouds not the antichrist and this ties it to His coming on the clouds in Revelation 1

[randyk]

Read Matthew 26:57-68 when Jesus refers back to His coming on the clouds in Daniel 7

What is the topic there in Matthew 26?

There is no mention of His coming to judge the antichrist in Matthew 26 but it is about the destruction of the temple

Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple and Jesus states that the Pharisees would see it and only then would they realize that He is the one coming on the clouds in Daniel 7 and they knew what He was claiming that’s why they shouted blastophmey and then killed HIm

Jesus ties the destruction of the temple to His coming on the clouds not the antichrist and this ties it to His coming on the clouds in Revelation 1

Matt 26.60 Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Jesus did not say he was coming to destroy the temple. That is what he was falsely accused of saying. What Jesus had actually done is predict that the temple would be destroyed, and that his coming would be long after that event, when the "times of the Gentiles were ended."

There is no question that Jesus brought about the destruction of the temple. One might even say he would "come" to do that. But it would not be a coming to earth from heaven with the clouds. Rather, it would be an imposition of God's word of judgment upon Israel.

On the other hand, the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds was first declared in Dan 7, in the context of the establishment of God's Kingdom on the earth. And that does not take place in the preaching of the gospel. Rather, souls get saved through the gospel at the present time. The Kingdom of God will actually come when God sends Christ to judge the world, and to punish sinners.