It says in Revelation that He will show him (John) things that happened before, are currently happening, and will happen in the future. Rev 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"
CONTINUED from first post: Paul took Barnabas and Titus with him “fourteen years” later when he returned to Jerusalem. Paul mentions that he had heard a “revelation” from a certain man that he fails to identify. Paul met with Peter, James, and “JOHN” around AD 49-50 at that precise “fourteen years” mark 2Co 12:2 Gal 2:1-10. It is probably at this meeting that John shared this “revelation” given to him “fourteen years” earlier when Paul was in Syria and Cilicia. This “revelation” John had seen “fourteen years” before was what he shared with Paul about things he had seen, things that are, and things that would take place afterwards Rev 1:19. So, this man that Paul is talking about was either Peter, James, or JOHN, not him. Paul wrote that this man was “caught up to the third heaven” / “paradise” but that he didn’t know whether the man was in the body or out of the body 2Co 12:2-4 AD 55-56. John was the only Apostle in the Scriptures to write about being in the spirit and being caught up to heaven Rev 4:1-2. So, John knew he was out of the body. John also labels this place as “paradise” in Rev 2:7. Many want to overlook that the text actually says that Paul knew a man not I was that man. These verses clearly refer to anyone besides Paul himself. For someone to assume that this refers to Paul would show that they are lacking in English composition skills. Many teach that Paul was so modest and humble that he would not identify himself as the man because he didn’t want to be thought of as a bragger. Come on, the Apostle Paul modest and humble! Why do you think God gave him a thorn in the flesh 2Co 12:7? It was to tone him down a few degrees and keep him in check. Paul admits that the thorn was because of his abundance of “revelations” that he was given and one of them was from John. Many want to elevate Paul over and above the other apostles and even Jesus himself. This false doctrine is called Pauline (See paper Pauline Doctrine). Paul himself rebukes this mindset that was prevalent in the house of Chloe in 1Co 1:11-13 and 1Co 3:3-7. This view is why most “carnal” Christians are actually Pauline - they look to Paul rather than to Jesus who is author, finisher, and foundation of our faith Mat 17:5 Joh 7:38. Another good argument for authorship of Revelation before 70AD is the prophecy of the “seven” kings in Rev 17:9-14. A detailed explanation of this is written in the paper (Seven-Roman-Caesars). Jesus prophesied that the people of Judea should flee to the mountains when they witnessed Jerusalem being compassed with armies for the desolation is nigh in Luk 21:20-21. This is a warning to the people of Israel in 66AD at the beginning of the Jewish-Roman War. So any Christians present at that time including John would have left before this desolation. This brings up the question: “Did John Measure a Future or Existing Temple?” If John measured a Future Temple, then all the following verses recorded in Revelation chapter 11 would be assumed to be future also. The events of Rev 11:3-19 are assumed to be future prophesies. So, how could the measurements of the temple, altar, and worshipers be a present activity that describes these as existing features at the time of John? Careful dissection of the verses in Rev 11:1-2 is warranted. The instruction to measure the temple, altar, and worshipers but leave out the outer court is described in Revelation 11 verse 1 and the first part of verse 2. Rev 11:1-2 “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure THE temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.” “But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not...” All this information about the measurements is written in present tense about existing features. All of the information about the events recorded in the remainder of verse 2 is referring to a future event that is yet to happen. This partial verse states that the court without is given to the Gentiles and they will tread the holy city under foot four 42 months. “...for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” So, the treading down of the holy city by the Gentiles for 42 months is a future prophecy that continues through the rest of Revelation chapter 11. This future prediction is not a part of the present time in which the measurement is taking place. Only the outer court not the temple or city is given to the gentiles. The verses do not state specifically that the temple will be trampled but that the holy city alone will be trampled. So the measurements are present. Whereas, the trampling and the events to follow are future. I doubt that this temple is God’s heavenly Temple because of the details collected from John’s descriptions. All of this Scriptural support seems to prove that John in fact did write the Book of Revelation before 70AD thereby “Trumping” the Church Fathers, scholars, and historians. But this in no way helps support a false Preterist view. With Charity Michael
Looks like my comment on the number of his name got removed somehow. Irenaeus confirms that already at his time there were what he considered errors in the text of the Apocalypse / Revelation regarding the number of the Beasts name. We have these manuscripts available to us today. This confirms that the Beast was Nero and the early copyists understood this. The Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616. "I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one." Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V Chap 30
Nero did not call fire down from heaven, nor could he give breath to an image that could speak and kill people. 666 is the wages of Solomon. Look out for the merchants of today calling fire from heaven, and creating artificial intelligences, and everything apps which will one day be mandatory. Ireneaus was not correct about everything, the scriptures are. God is not so weak as to not have correctly preserved His word, yet have perfectly inerrantly preserved the words of some ancient bishop. If you quote a man over the clear scriptures you are in woe territory. With love. ❤
With regard to Irenaeus' statement "....for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." The "that" which was seen no very long time since in the Greek can be "it" or "he". When grammatically we cannot obtain clarity the context ought to be used to determine the correct interpretation. The context clearly is if John wanted the name publicly revealed he would have done it himself since he was alive and seen by believers towards the end of Domitians reign.
@@BenVanCampYou may believe whatever you like. The historical record and evidence shows otherwise. We are currently at the end of all things. I don't know any Christian who could support a stance that Satan is not loosed on this earth. The invasion of Gog happened in 1948. Revelation 20. The Khazars are from the land of Magog along with Mesheck and Tubal. They were situated between the Black and Caspian seas and migrated West into Europe. th-cam.com/video/ExezejyrE4U/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB The chief prince is Gog whom is Satan. They came into a land of unwalled villages that was waste and was brought back from the sword and at rest dwelling safely upon the mountains of Israel. All of the inhabitants tending their cattle and herds. They came to take a spoil and continue to do so. Ezekiel 38. Prophecy can only be understood once fulfilled. May the Grace and Peace of our Lord Jesus be with you brother!
@@ChurchPhone1769 thx you caused me to search the scripture and the heart and mind are inseparable even when not implicit, Prov 3:5, Ps 119:9-11, Ps 37:4, Matt5:8, Ps 26:2, Rom12:2. We need to take the whole counsel of Gods word, not one verse out of context. Worthy of a more in-depth Bible study so thx for the prompt my friend and God bless you ,🙏
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus; 15 December AD 37 - 9 June AD 68) was Roman emperor and the final emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, reigning from AD 54 until his death in AD 68. Nero was born at Antium in AD 37, the son . Wiki.
I see. It was his birth name. I obviously missed that. Either way Irenaeuas clearly was talking about Domitian from the 80s if you read his writing and not Nero.
@@TheSpiritofProphecy1611 And.. there is some controversy over Irenaeus writing on the age of Jesus saying something like Jesus was around 50 y.o. when he died. ECF's can be a bit messy and contradictory, but we must do our best to keep working for truth where ever we find it. Thanks for your work. Love br. David - Canada.
Things you missed: 1. Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was Nero's birth name 2. Many believed during the early days of Christianity that Nero was the Antichrist (Nero Redivivus) 3. The statement made by Irenaeus "For it was seen" can 100% refer to John 4. Eusebius left the door open to doubt the canonicity of Revelation 5. There is ancient and textual support for Revelation being written during the reign of Nero "In the title of the Syriac version, this revelation is said to be made to John in the isle of Patmos, into which he was cast by Nero Caesar." 6. E.W. Bullinger wrote the best commentary on Revelation
"Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was Nero's birth name" This is an unbelievably weak argument preterists and other early date advocates use, grasping at straws in an vain attempt to defend the early date. First off, they are similar names 'Domitius' is not the same name as Domitian (or Domitianus in Latin, from which Domitian is derived)! Are you aware that there was a usurper against Diocletian named Lucius Domitius Domitianus who was also known as Domitian III? Also Nero was never referred to as Domitius while emperor since the name of Nero was given to him around the age of 12 or 13. He was adopted by his stepfather Claudius who gave him the name of Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. But even if he had been called Domitius as emperor that would still be a moot point since it's not the same name as Domitian. "Many believed during the early days of Christianity that Nero was the Antichrist (Nero Redivivus)" That was contingent upon Nero coming back to life, which he never did, so this is also a moot point. But in the early days of the church many Christians also had some other strange beliefs that would hardly be adopted today, probably because there isn't an entire eschatological belief built upon them. "The statement made by Irenaeus "For it was seen" can 100% refer to John" In Irenaeus' writings he says twice that John survived into the time of Trajan. Conveniently, this is ignored to cherry-pick in favor of the preterist position. If he was referring to the length of time John had existed in the earth in terms of the emperor who was reigning at the time of John's death, then he would have mentioned his existence during Trajan's reign and not at the end of Domitian's reign. If you had a parent or grandparent who died in 1987, would you say they were seen near the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency? Obviously not, since he left office in early 1981. "There is ancient and textual support for Revelation being written during the reign of Nero "In the title of the Syriac version, this revelation is said to be made to John in the isle of Patmos, into which he was cast by Nero Caesar." The earliest Peshitta manuscript we have is from the 5th century, and flies in the face of over 400 years of church history in which it was known that Domitian had John exiled and not Nero. Nero didn't exile a single Christian--- he did things like set them on fire instead. Domitian, however, was known for exiling dissidents. In addition to Hegessippus (who, notably, wrote this prior to Irenaeus), Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, and a number of other church fathers both before and not long after the council at Nicaea all confirm that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian where he received Revelation. The lack of any dissenting view naming Nero in place of Domitian until over 400 years after John had died should give early-date advocates pause. Look at all of the church debates held among those first few centuries on a myriad of issues. Interestingly enough, none of them included whether it was Domitian or Nero who exiled John. I mean, how seriously would it be taken if someone today claimed that the Mayflower was actually called the Junedaisy, 4 centuries after the fact? Not seriously at all, and that's the length of time we're talking about here.
@@JohnnyDoe1012 You completely missed my point. Did you even pay attention to the video? 1. Tommy failed to give Nero's birth name. He said the name Nero had was the one he shared and that there was no other name for Nero. He was wrong! 2. Tommy said that no one believed that Nero was the antichtrist. He was wrong! In regards to Nero returning you said, "That was contingent upon Nero coming back to life, which he never did, so this is also a moot point." It was not a moot point because I was just pointing out that early Christians DID believe Nero would return to be the Beast. He was 666 too many! 3. No one denied that John lived to an old age. You don't get what I am saying. "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." "That" can refer to John himself. Why don't you point out that at the beginning of Against Heresies (Book V, Ch. 30) he mentions the "ancient copies" of the Revelation? "ancient copies" vs "no very long time since." It would make sense if "that" referred to John since he lived according to TRADITION to Trajan. 4. You said, "The earliest Peshitta manuscript we have is from the 5th century, and flies in the face of over 400 years of church history." Many things you believe fly in the face of church history. This is proof that John was written during the time of Nero. Aramaic was the national language of the Israelites. John and Jesus spoke Aramaic! There is no reason to believe that the scribes who copied the ancient Syriac were lying. Both you and Tommy were unaware of this evidence until I brought it up. Tommy asked for evidence and I provided it. 5. Can you share the primary source quote from Hegesippus? I don't deny that historians taught Domitian sent John to Patmos. What I am doing is getting everyone to question the historians and examine ALL the evidence. 6. John clearly teaches that he wrote before the year 70 AD. "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." Rev. 11:2 "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:" rev. 1:1 "Shortly come to pass" The Book of Revelation I believe was written before 70 AD. The book is for Israel and only Israel!
@@socalpreston No one denied that John lived to an old age. You don't get what I am saying. "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." "That" can refer to John himself. Why don't you point out that at the beginning of Against Heresies (Book V, Ch. 30) he mentions the "ancient copies" of the Revelation? "ancient copies" vs "no very long time since." It would make sense if "that" referred to John since he lived according to TRADITION to Trajan." In the proper context, look at what Irenaeus said about the 'ancient copies': he used the wording 'most approved and ancient copies'. In other words, the most approved and most ancient: i.e. the oldest and most reliable copies. The gap between the early date and late date is about 30 years which is hardly enough to make the difference between 'recent' and 'ancient' when we're dealing with the late 2nd century as the point of reference. And as I said before, it doesn't make sense to say that Irenaeus could have been referring to John when it's read in context. If he was referring to the length of time John had existed in the earth in terms of the emperor who was reigning at the time of John's death, then he would have mentioned his existence during Trajan's reign and not at the end of Domitian's reign. Again, if you had a parent or grandparent who died in 1987, would you say they were seen near the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency? Obviously not, since he left office in early 1981 " You said, "The earliest Peshitta manuscript we have is from the 5th century, and flies in the face of over 400 years of church history." Many things you believe fly in the face of church history. This is proof that John was written during the time of Nero. Aramaic was the national language of the Israelites. John and Jesus spoke Aramaic! There is no reason to believe that the scribes who copied the ancient Syriac were lying. Both you and Tommy were unaware of this evidence until I brought it up. Tommy asked for evidence and I provided it." A 400 year gap before the first known documentation for the early date is hardly proof of anything. I didn't say any scribes were lying. It's entirely possible that it was simply a mistake. The earliest supposed evidence for the early date is a document that reverses over 4 centuries of what the early church believed regarding just who exactly exiled John to Patmos. How seriously would it be taken if someone today claimed that Queen Elizabeth I did not, in fact, die childless but had did have some? Nobody has claimed it since she died in the early 1600's and this gap is too significant to ignore. Same with the name of the ship 'Mayflower' being changed now to something different. There's no evidence to support either claim, especially not so long after the fact. The early church fathers one after another said Domitian exiled John and not Nero, until for some reason the Syriac Peshitta claims the opposite. This cannot be brushed aside so easily. "Can you share the primary source quote from Hegesippus? I don't deny that historians taught Domitian sent John to Patmos. What I am doing is getting everyone to question the historians and examine ALL the evidence." Eusebius records the following: But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition." So the ones who wrote about the history of those dates from the ancient Christian tradition, including Hegesippus, all knew who exiled John and it sure wasn't Nero. While not a direct quote from Hegesippus it's again extremely important to note that the early church had a LOT of debates and schisms but the date of the writing of Revelation was not among any of them. What exactly is it that makes the Syriac Peshitta so authoritative that it overrides hundreds of years of church history with this claim in the 5th century regarding the early date? "John clearly teaches that he wrote before the year 70 AD. "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." Rev. 11:2" When read in a vacuum, Revelation 11 can appear at first glance that it could be referring to the 2nd temple. But nothing could be further from the truth. Preterism has a woefully misinformed view on the temple in Revelation because it fails to take into account the fact that when you look at all of the passages that speak of the temple, there's no possible way this is referring to the 2nd temple. First off, saying that the temple must have still stood when John was shown Revelation lacks sound reasoning because Ezekiel was also shown a temple starting in Ezekiel 40 after the first temple had already been destroyed, and a temple was also being measured. It clearly wasn't the first temple since it was already destroyed, but applying the the preterist version of reasoning one would have to say that this vision had to have been received while the first temple still stood. This was shown to Ezekiel 25 years into captivity (ch 40, verse 1). He went into exile around 597 B.C., and the first temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. Instead of viewing the temple in Revelation in a vacuum and in doing so neglect the context, you must take an honest reading of Revelation 3:12, 7:15, 14:15, 14:17, 15:5, 16:1, 16:17. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.'- Rev 3:12 Is Jesus saying that those who overcome will literally become pillars in the 2nd temple? Obviously not. What about metaphoric pillars in the 2nd temple? And what about He shall go out no more? New Jerusalem? Clearly this is not set in the earthly Jerusalem. '“These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.' from Rev 7:14-15 Those who went through the Great Tribulation are all here literally serving God round the clock in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem? Even if they were to all fit, which they wouldn't, you need to take into account just where they all come from as it says in verse 9. 'After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands' Rev 7:9 ALL nations, ALL tribes, ALL peoples, ALL languages. This was not in the first century A.D., because the Neronic persecution was centered in Rome. It did not extend even to all parts of the Roman Empire, let alone outside of it. 'And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come [j]for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”' Rev 14:15 Was this angel literally coming out of the 2nd temple? Please look up each reference and study them. How were these definitely not referring to the 2nd temple but in Revelation 11 somehow it was? Have preterists even read chapter 11 in its entirety? Rev 11:1 "Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the TEMPLE OF GOD, the altar, and those who worship there." (emphasis added) and from Rev 11:19 "Then the TEMPLE OF GOD was opened IN HEAVEN, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple." (emphasis added again) The scene was set in Heaven, not the earthly Jerusalem. The ark of the covenant was lost after the Babylonian destruction of the first temple in 586 A.D., which is enough all by itself to poke a giant hole through this preterist interpretation in Revelation. This was in no way, shape, or form referring to the 2nd temple in earthly Jerusalem. ""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:" rev. 1:1 "Shortly come to pass" The Greek can also mean speedily, so when it begins it won't take long to complete (i.e. Luke 18:7-8, all martyrs not yet avenged Revelation 6:9-11). When Jesus actually returns, no one will be able to deny it. Jesus Himself warns against any so-called reports of His return in Matthew 24 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. So did you see Him return with your own eyes in the first century, or did someone else claim that He returned and you believed them contrary to Jesus' warnings?
@@JohnnyDoe1012 When I read statements like "In the proper context," "when it's read in context," "when read in a vacuum," I get the sense that I am having a conversation with someone who is committed to their political-religious party. Your political-religious party is the foundation of your "context." Revelation is super clear! The internal evidence points to a pre-70 AD. You asked, "What exactly is it that makes the Syriac Peshitta so authoritative that it overrides hundreds of years of church history with this claim in the 5th century regarding the early date?" Again there are many things you believe that "override" church history! How do you know that the Syriac witness is 5th century and not earlier? The witness was attached to Scripture itself. John spoke Syriac. Syriac was the National language of the Israelites. When Josephus wrote The Jewish Wars he penned it in Syriac. I highly recommend you read Moses Stuart's reasons for why it was written before the fall of Jerusalem. If you know of anyone that does a better job than him please let me know. Lastly, it appears to me based on your responses that you think I am a preterist. I am no Preterist. I am a futurist!
I had someone mention the early date for Revelations and I came to similar stance as you Pastor, but I came to the conclusions after they started saying one line by Ireanus wasnt translated correctly 😂. Then someone pointed out the leaven of a early date now causes contradications because you've got Revelation 2, on Ephesus leaving their first love but Ephesians saying they are faithful and such an encouraging letter. Then I thought if it was written that early it'd have to be before the 7 year war and then way would they put Revelation at the end of the bible instead of before the epistles. But I wasnt sure that those arguments held up. Anyways I basically was like uh I just don't see enough information to believe it was written early and if the early date is gonna start causing contradictions in the text I want nothing to do with it that sounds like leaven. I believe it was written in the 90s, but thanks Pastor for all the diligence in your research!
The iron “mixed” with miry clay, these 2 kingdoms were intermingled yet they didn’t mix. If we know Rome was the iron that came after the Grecian dynasty, the clay had to coexist with Rome. Was not God the Potter and His people the clay? Did not the Pharisees cry out - “We have no king but Cesar!” At the judgement seat of Pontius Pilate when he desired to release the “King of the Jews”?
Any prophecy that was fulfilled during the time of the writing of scripture was recorded in scripture. The fulfillment would always be pointed out in scripture by signal phrases telling us that those prophecies were fulfilled. There is no scripture claiming the fulfillment of the end times prophecies. Therefore, they have not been fulfilled. We will know when they are fulfilled because the heaven and earth which are now will be gone and the saved will be in the new heaven and the new earth. Therefore the timing of the writing of the book of Revelation doesn't matter because it hasn't been fulfilled in any part from chapter 6 through chapter 22.
Jesus' own prophecy failed, revelation was written to cope with that. Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every person according to his deeds. “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Are you familiar with confirmation bias? lol Do you think that skews your "research" just a little. You stated at the start of your video that everything falls apart if Rev isn't dated late and then continued to point out only those sources who support your predetermined outcome. Also your statement "The Bible trumps all history" you can't possibly believe you have done anything that a reputable scholar would support. Come on
He gave historical references. Personally, I don't think it disproves Pre-mill view even if written in 65 ad. But Post and A-Mill has to have that early date, or it all falls apart. My thinking is that Revelation was written to gentile churches. So applying it to first century Judea doesn't really fit the audience.
I believe most preterists say that 1st century Jerusalem was Mystery Babylon. I have asked them a question and haven't gotten an answer. How did first century Jerusalem deceive the nations by their centuries and make all nations wealthy by her?
@Ditchdiggerpewsitter I am not denying that there were Jewish believers in the 7 churches. But there were also Gentile believers there. Why do you think none of the 7 churches were in Jerusalem?
Most Bible scholars support the late date authorship of the Book of Revelation to around 96AD approximately 26 years after the destruction of the City of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD. They do this mostly to support the view that the Jew will be given a future 7 years to reestablish the blessings of Abraham to the modern Nation of Israel (See paper Daniel’s-72Weeks). This also would support the idea that the Temple that John was measuring was a FUTURE Temple Rev 11:1-2. This belief supports the idea that all of God’s promises were unconditional which supports the doctrine of “Zionism”. This would also give credence to the rebuilding of a future third temple and a return to Old Covenant practices such as animal sacrifices etc. On the other hand, many reject the evidences of the early dating of Revelation before 70 AD simply because of a false doctrine called “Preterism”. Let me get one thing straight: “I am NOT a Preterist”. I believe that many things in the Book of Revelation are to happen in the future. So, do not throw out my views on this subject by simply placing me in their camp. Let the facts stand for themselves. The late date for revelation authorship is primarily supported by some of the, so called, early Church FATHERS to which I respond “call no man your father” Mat 23:9. These external views are neither consistent with each other and are definitely not inspired writings. Church history is so controversial and slanted you cannot rely on it for Biblical truth. The internal views using Scripture should take precedence over Church history and any commentary. Who would listen to these so called “FATHERS” if they couldn’t get the Godhead right? (See paper Godhead vs Trinity) Most Biblical historians make the statement that John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos by the Roman Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) so that the late date can be justified. But others say that he was exiled to Patmos by the Roman Emperor Nero (54-68 AD). Both of these theories are just that theories. Too much conflicting information for me. There is not even any good Biblical evidence that he was even exiled. He could have went to Patmos for the evangelization of the Island and the edification of the seven Churches of Asia. The verse says “...was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God...” not “was exiled to the isle that is called Patmos” Rev 1:9. The 40 year gap in the middle of Dan 9:26 after Christ was cutoff till the Roman prince Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD would allow time for the gospel to go to the Jew for 7 years and then to the Gentiles for 33 years (See paper Daniels 72 Weeks). This would allow enough time to pass before the completion of the New Testament Scriptures prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. It seems logical to assume that God would establish the New Testament Scriptures before the Old Covenant “vanished away” when the Second Temple was destroyed in 70AD Heb 8:13. If John had not written Revelation until 96AD, the people would have been in an interim or limbo state without the New Testament or a Temple for 26 years. John would have also been so old that he would have been ready for the old folk’s home. John is told to measure THE temple not “A” temple. He never mentions the existing Temple and the city being destroyed in 70AD. Notice that he also never comments on or asks about this major event that would have already occurred. Nowhere in the Book of Revelation does John ever even hint that the Jewish Roman War had even happened. This absence gives credence to the before 70ad view. Also the listings of the Seven Roman Caesars is before 70ad (See paper Seven-Roman-Caesars). This would confirm that the disciple John wrote the Book of Revelation before 70AD NOT after 96AD which is a total GUESS. Another evidence for this view is that Paul wrote 2Co 12:2-7 around 55-56AD and he talked about John’s revelation. So, John must have written Revelation before 70AD. Why would have John waited approximately 46 years (56Ad to 96AD) to write down his Revelation. Paul is talking about the Apostle John who had witnessed the events of the Book of Revelation “fourteen years” before Paul wrote 2Co 12:2-7. Paul knew about this because John was in the process of writing it down. Paul shared about it but he could not share the whole revelation for it was “not lawful for a man to utter” 2Co 12:4. He didn’t name John because he didn’t want to interfere or hamper future events. After the journey of Saul (Paul) to Damascus, Paul went to meet with Ananias then traveled to Arabia and then returned to Damascus Act 9:1-3 Act 9:17 Gal 1:17. It was three years after his encounter with Christ that he finally went to Jerusalem meeting Peter and James and then he went to Syria and Cilicia Gal 1:17-19 AD 49-50. CONTINUED...
Unfortunately the enemy has pushed a false belief in Unitarianism. God judged the world once by water and the evidence is everywhere to those who look. Because the enemy is a liar and the father of lies. When he lies he speaks his native tongue.
Learnt a lot with this one, thank you Ps McMurtry.
Wow, this was awesome. Very well researched! Thanks, Pastor.
If you understand the scriptures it was written in 66 AD
Amen, this is much more accurate.
It says in Revelation that He will show him (John) things that happened before, are currently happening, and will happen in the future. Rev 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"
Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Been waiting for this. Let's see...
It’s been a long time coming!
The father knew the time, and he sent Jesus tell John the time of his coming. That would happen soon.
THANK YOU
CONTINUED from first post:
Paul took Barnabas and Titus with him “fourteen years” later when he returned to Jerusalem. Paul mentions that he had heard a “revelation” from a certain man that he fails to identify. Paul met with Peter, James, and “JOHN” around AD 49-50 at that precise “fourteen years” mark 2Co 12:2 Gal 2:1-10. It is probably at this meeting that John shared this “revelation” given to him “fourteen years” earlier when Paul was in Syria and Cilicia. This “revelation” John had seen “fourteen years” before was what he shared with Paul about things he had seen, things that are, and things that would take place afterwards Rev 1:19. So, this man that Paul is talking about was either Peter, James, or JOHN, not him.
Paul wrote that this man was “caught up to the third heaven” / “paradise” but that he didn’t know whether the man was in the body or out of the body 2Co 12:2-4 AD 55-56. John was the only Apostle in the Scriptures to write about being in the spirit and being caught up to heaven Rev 4:1-2. So, John knew he was out of the body. John also labels this place as “paradise” in Rev 2:7. Many want to overlook that the text actually says that Paul knew a man not I was that man. These verses clearly refer to anyone besides Paul himself. For someone to assume that this refers to Paul would show that they are lacking in English composition skills.
Many teach that Paul was so modest and humble that he would not identify himself as the man because he didn’t want to be thought of as a bragger. Come on, the Apostle Paul modest and humble! Why do you think God gave him a thorn in the flesh 2Co 12:7? It was to tone him down a few degrees and keep him in check. Paul admits that the thorn was because of his abundance of “revelations” that he was given and one of them was from John.
Many want to elevate Paul over and above the other apostles and even Jesus himself. This false doctrine is called Pauline (See paper Pauline Doctrine). Paul himself rebukes this mindset that was prevalent in the house of Chloe in 1Co 1:11-13 and 1Co 3:3-7. This view is why most “carnal” Christians are actually Pauline - they look to Paul rather than to Jesus who is author, finisher, and foundation of our faith Mat 17:5 Joh 7:38.
Another good argument for authorship of Revelation before 70AD is the prophecy of the “seven” kings in Rev 17:9-14. A detailed explanation of this is written in the paper (Seven-Roman-Caesars). Jesus prophesied that the people of Judea should flee to the mountains when they witnessed Jerusalem being compassed with armies for the desolation is nigh in Luk 21:20-21. This is a warning to the people of Israel in 66AD at the beginning of the Jewish-Roman War. So any Christians present at that time including John would have left before this desolation.
This brings up the question: “Did John Measure a Future or Existing Temple?” If John measured a Future Temple, then all the following verses recorded in Revelation chapter 11 would be assumed to be future also. The events of Rev 11:3-19 are assumed to be future prophesies. So, how could the measurements of the temple, altar, and worshipers be a present activity that describes these as existing features at the time of John? Careful dissection of the verses in Rev 11:1-2 is warranted.
The instruction to measure the temple, altar, and worshipers but leave out the outer court is described in Revelation 11 verse 1 and the first part of verse 2. Rev 11:1-2 “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure THE temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.” “But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not...” All this information about the measurements is written in present tense about existing features.
All of the information about the events recorded in the remainder of verse 2 is referring to a future event that is yet to happen. This partial verse states that the court without is given to the Gentiles and they will tread the holy city under foot four 42 months. “...for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” So, the treading down of the holy city by the Gentiles for 42 months is a future prophecy that continues through the rest of Revelation chapter 11.
This future prediction is not a part of the present time in which the measurement is taking place. Only the outer court not the temple or city is given to the gentiles. The verses do not state specifically that the temple will be trampled but that the holy city alone will be trampled. So the measurements are present. Whereas, the trampling and the events to follow are future. I doubt that this temple is God’s heavenly Temple because of the details collected from John’s descriptions. All of this Scriptural support seems to prove that John in fact did write the Book of Revelation before 70AD thereby “Trumping” the Church Fathers, scholars, and historians. But this in no way helps support a false Preterist view. With Charity Michael
Looks like my comment on the number of his name got removed somehow. Irenaeus confirms that already at his time there were what he considered errors in the text of the Apocalypse / Revelation regarding the number of the Beasts name. We have these manuscripts available to us today. This confirms that the Beast was Nero and the early copyists understood this. The Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616.
"I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one." Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V Chap 30
Nero did not call fire down from heaven, nor could he give breath to an image that could speak and kill people. 666 is the wages of Solomon. Look out for the merchants of today calling fire from heaven, and creating artificial intelligences, and everything apps which will one day be mandatory. Ireneaus was not correct about everything, the scriptures are. God is not so weak as to not have correctly preserved His word, yet have perfectly inerrantly preserved the words of some ancient bishop. If you quote a man over the clear scriptures you are in woe territory. With love. ❤
With regard to Irenaeus' statement "....for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." The "that" which was seen no very long time since in the Greek can be "it" or "he". When grammatically we cannot obtain clarity the context ought to be used to determine the correct interpretation. The context clearly is if John wanted the name publicly revealed he would have done it himself since he was alive and seen by believers towards the end of Domitians reign.
Again brother, Nero did not fulfill or even come close to fulfilling the prophecies in Revelation 13. These things are only possible today.
@@BenVanCampYou may believe whatever you like. The historical record and evidence shows otherwise. We are currently at the end of all things. I don't know any Christian who could support a stance that Satan is not loosed on this earth. The invasion of Gog happened in 1948. Revelation 20.
The Khazars are from the land of Magog along with Mesheck and Tubal. They were situated between the Black and Caspian seas and migrated West into Europe.
th-cam.com/video/ExezejyrE4U/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
The chief prince is Gog whom is Satan. They came into a land of unwalled villages that was waste and was brought back from the sword and at rest dwelling safely upon the mountains of Israel. All of the inhabitants tending their cattle and herds. They came to take a spoil and continue to do so. Ezekiel 38. Prophecy can only be understood once fulfilled. May the Grace and Peace of our Lord Jesus be with you brother!
My heart says early date, my head says later date.
Follow your heart
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Hope that helps! 😂
@@ChurchPhone1769 thx you caused me to search the scripture and the heart and mind are inseparable even when not implicit, Prov 3:5, Ps 119:9-11, Ps 37:4, Matt5:8, Ps 26:2, Rom12:2. We need to take the whole counsel of Gods word, not one verse out of context. Worthy of a more in-depth Bible study so thx for the prompt my friend and God bless you ,🙏
@@poewitx Amen!
The Bible says not to follow your heart for it is desperately wicked
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus; 15 December AD 37 - 9 June AD 68) was Roman emperor and the final emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, reigning from AD 54 until his death in AD 68. Nero was born at Antium in AD 37, the son . Wiki.
I see. It was his birth name. I obviously missed that.
Either way Irenaeuas clearly was talking about Domitian from the 80s if you read his writing and not Nero.
@@TheSpiritofProphecy1611 And.. there is some controversy over Irenaeus writing on the age of Jesus saying something like Jesus was around 50 y.o. when he died. ECF's can be a bit messy and contradictory, but we must do our best to keep working for truth where ever we find it. Thanks for your work. Love br. David - Canada.
Things you missed:
1. Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was Nero's birth name
2. Many believed during the early days of Christianity that Nero was the Antichrist (Nero Redivivus)
3. The statement made by Irenaeus "For it was seen" can 100% refer to John
4. Eusebius left the door open to doubt the canonicity of Revelation
5. There is ancient and textual support for Revelation being written during the reign of Nero "In the title of the Syriac version, this revelation is said to be made to John in the isle of Patmos, into which he was cast by Nero Caesar."
6. E.W. Bullinger wrote the best commentary on Revelation
"Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was Nero's birth name" This is an unbelievably weak argument preterists and other early date advocates use, grasping at straws in an vain attempt to defend the early date. First off, they are similar names 'Domitius' is not the same name as Domitian (or Domitianus in Latin, from which Domitian is derived)! Are you aware that there was a usurper against Diocletian named Lucius Domitius Domitianus who was also known as Domitian III?
Also Nero was never referred to as Domitius while emperor since the name of Nero was given to him around the age of 12 or 13. He was adopted by his stepfather Claudius who gave him the name of Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. But even if he had been called Domitius as emperor that would still be a moot point since it's not the same name as Domitian.
"Many believed during the early days of Christianity that Nero was the Antichrist (Nero Redivivus)"
That was contingent upon Nero coming back to life, which he never did, so this is also a moot point. But in the early days of the church many Christians also had some other strange beliefs that would hardly be adopted today, probably because there isn't an entire eschatological belief built upon them.
"The statement made by Irenaeus "For it was seen" can 100% refer to John"
In Irenaeus' writings he says twice that John survived into the time of Trajan. Conveniently, this is ignored to cherry-pick in favor of the preterist position. If he was referring to the length of time John had existed in the earth in terms of the emperor who was reigning at the time of John's death, then he would have mentioned his existence during Trajan's reign and not at the end of Domitian's reign.
If you had a parent or grandparent who died in 1987, would you say they were seen near the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency? Obviously not, since he left office in early 1981.
"There is ancient and textual support for Revelation being written during the reign of Nero "In the title of the Syriac version, this revelation is said to be made to John in the isle of Patmos, into which he was cast by Nero Caesar."
The earliest Peshitta manuscript we have is from the 5th century, and flies in the face of over 400 years of church history in which it was known that Domitian had John exiled and not Nero. Nero didn't exile a single Christian--- he did things like set them on fire instead. Domitian, however, was known for exiling dissidents.
In addition to Hegessippus (who, notably, wrote this prior to Irenaeus), Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, and a number of other church fathers both before and not long after the council at Nicaea all confirm that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian where he received Revelation. The lack of any dissenting view naming Nero in place of Domitian until over 400 years after John had died should give early-date advocates pause. Look at all of the church debates held among those first few centuries on a myriad of issues. Interestingly enough, none of them included whether it was Domitian or Nero who exiled John.
I mean, how seriously would it be taken if someone today claimed that the Mayflower was actually called the Junedaisy, 4 centuries after the fact? Not seriously at all, and that's the length of time we're talking about here.
@@JohnnyDoe1012 You completely missed my point. Did you even pay attention to the video?
1. Tommy failed to give Nero's birth name. He said the name Nero had was the one he shared and that there was no other name for Nero. He was wrong!
2. Tommy said that no one believed that Nero was the antichtrist. He was wrong! In regards to Nero returning you said, "That was contingent upon Nero coming back to life, which he never did, so this is also a moot point." It was not a moot point because I was just pointing out that early Christians DID believe Nero would return to be the Beast. He was 666 too many!
3. No one denied that John lived to an old age. You don't get what I am saying. "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." "That" can refer to John himself. Why don't you point out that at the beginning of Against Heresies (Book V, Ch. 30) he mentions the "ancient copies" of the Revelation?
"ancient copies" vs "no very long time since." It would make sense if "that" referred to John since he lived according to TRADITION to Trajan.
4. You said, "The earliest Peshitta manuscript we have is from the 5th century, and flies in the face of over 400 years of church history." Many things you believe fly in the face of church history. This is proof that John was written during the time of Nero. Aramaic was the national language of the Israelites. John and Jesus spoke Aramaic! There is no reason to believe that the scribes who copied the ancient Syriac were lying. Both you and Tommy were unaware of this evidence until I brought it up. Tommy asked for evidence and I provided it.
5. Can you share the primary source quote from Hegesippus? I don't deny that historians taught Domitian sent John to Patmos. What I am doing is getting everyone to question the historians and examine ALL the evidence.
6. John clearly teaches that he wrote before the year 70 AD. "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." Rev. 11:2
"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:" rev. 1:1 "Shortly come to pass"
The Book of Revelation I believe was written before 70 AD. The book is for Israel and only Israel!
@@socalpreston No one denied that John lived to an old age. You don't get what I am saying. "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." "That" can refer to John himself. Why don't you point out that at the beginning of Against Heresies (Book V, Ch. 30) he mentions the "ancient copies" of the Revelation?
"ancient copies" vs "no very long time since." It would make sense if "that" referred to John since he lived according to TRADITION to Trajan."
In the proper context, look at what Irenaeus said about the 'ancient copies': he used the wording 'most approved and ancient copies'. In other words, the most approved and most ancient: i.e. the oldest and most reliable copies. The gap between the early date and late date is about 30 years which is hardly enough to make the difference between 'recent' and 'ancient' when we're dealing with the late 2nd century as the point of reference.
And as I said before, it doesn't make sense to say that Irenaeus could have been referring to John when it's read in context. If he was referring to the length of time John had existed in the earth in terms of the emperor who was reigning at the time of John's death, then he would have mentioned his existence during Trajan's reign and not at the end of Domitian's reign.
Again, if you had a parent or grandparent who died in 1987, would you say they were seen near the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency? Obviously not, since he left office in early 1981
" You said, "The earliest Peshitta manuscript we have is from the 5th century, and flies in the face of over 400 years of church history." Many things you believe fly in the face of church history. This is proof that John was written during the time of Nero. Aramaic was the national language of the Israelites. John and Jesus spoke Aramaic! There is no reason to believe that the scribes who copied the ancient Syriac were lying. Both you and Tommy were unaware of this evidence until I brought it up. Tommy asked for evidence and I provided it."
A 400 year gap before the first known documentation for the early date is hardly proof of anything. I didn't say any scribes were lying. It's entirely possible that it was simply a mistake. The earliest supposed evidence for the early date is a document that reverses over 4 centuries of what the early church believed regarding just who exactly exiled John to Patmos. How seriously would it be taken if someone today claimed that Queen Elizabeth I did not, in fact, die childless but had did have some? Nobody has claimed it since she died in the early 1600's and this gap is too significant to ignore. Same with the name of the ship 'Mayflower' being changed now to something different. There's no evidence to support either claim, especially not so long after the fact. The early church fathers one after another said Domitian exiled John and not Nero, until for some reason the Syriac Peshitta claims the opposite. This cannot be brushed aside so easily.
"Can you share the primary source quote from Hegesippus? I don't deny that historians taught Domitian sent John to Patmos. What I am doing is getting everyone to question the historians and examine ALL the evidence."
Eusebius records the following: But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition."
So the ones who wrote about the history of those dates from the ancient Christian tradition, including Hegesippus, all knew who exiled John and it sure wasn't Nero. While not a direct quote from Hegesippus it's again extremely important to note that the early church had a LOT of debates and schisms but the date of the writing of Revelation was not among any of them.
What exactly is it that makes the Syriac Peshitta so authoritative that it overrides hundreds of years of church history with this claim in the 5th century regarding the early date?
"John clearly teaches that he wrote before the year 70 AD. "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." Rev. 11:2"
When read in a vacuum, Revelation 11 can appear at first glance that it could be referring to the 2nd temple. But nothing could be further from the truth. Preterism has a woefully misinformed view on the temple in Revelation because it fails to take into account the fact that when you look at all of the passages that speak of the temple, there's no possible way this is referring to the 2nd temple.
First off, saying that the temple must have still stood when John was shown Revelation lacks sound reasoning because Ezekiel was also shown a temple starting in Ezekiel 40 after the first temple had already been destroyed, and a temple was also being measured. It clearly wasn't the first temple since it was already destroyed, but applying the the preterist version of reasoning one would have to say that this vision had to have been received while the first temple still stood. This was shown to Ezekiel 25 years into captivity (ch 40, verse 1). He went into exile around 597 B.C., and the first temple was destroyed in 586 B.C.
Instead of viewing the temple in Revelation in a vacuum and in doing so neglect the context, you must take an honest reading of Revelation 3:12, 7:15, 14:15, 14:17, 15:5, 16:1, 16:17.
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.'- Rev 3:12
Is Jesus saying that those who overcome will literally become pillars in the 2nd temple? Obviously not. What about metaphoric pillars in the 2nd temple? And what about He shall go out no more? New Jerusalem? Clearly this is not set in the earthly Jerusalem.
'“These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.' from Rev 7:14-15
Those who went through the Great Tribulation are all here literally serving God round the clock in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem? Even if they were to all fit, which they wouldn't, you need to take into account just where they all come from as it says in verse 9.
'After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands' Rev 7:9
ALL nations, ALL tribes, ALL peoples, ALL languages. This was not in the first century A.D., because the Neronic persecution was centered in Rome. It did not extend even to all parts of the Roman Empire, let alone outside of it.
'And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come [j]for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”' Rev 14:15
Was this angel literally coming out of the 2nd temple? Please look up each reference and study them. How were these definitely not referring to the 2nd temple but in Revelation 11 somehow it was? Have preterists even read chapter 11 in its entirety?
Rev 11:1 "Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the TEMPLE OF GOD, the altar, and those who worship there." (emphasis added)
and from Rev 11:19 "Then the TEMPLE OF GOD was opened IN HEAVEN, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple." (emphasis added again)
The scene was set in Heaven, not the earthly Jerusalem. The ark of the covenant was lost after the Babylonian destruction of the first temple in 586 A.D., which is enough all by itself to poke a giant hole through this preterist interpretation in Revelation. This was in no way, shape, or form referring to the 2nd temple in earthly Jerusalem.
""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:" rev. 1:1 "Shortly come to pass"
The Greek can also mean speedily, so when it begins it won't take long to complete (i.e. Luke 18:7-8, all martyrs not yet avenged Revelation 6:9-11). When Jesus actually returns, no one will be able to deny it. Jesus Himself warns against any so-called reports of His return in Matthew 24
23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
So did you see Him return with your own eyes in the first century, or did someone else claim that He returned and you believed them contrary to Jesus' warnings?
@@JohnnyDoe1012
When I read statements like "In the proper context," "when it's read in context," "when read in a vacuum," I get the sense that I am having a conversation with someone who is committed to their political-religious party. Your political-religious party is the foundation of your "context."
Revelation is super clear! The internal evidence points to a pre-70 AD.
You asked, "What exactly is it that makes the Syriac Peshitta so authoritative that it overrides hundreds of years of church history with this claim in the 5th century regarding the early date?"
Again there are many things you believe that "override" church history! How do you know that the Syriac witness is 5th century and not earlier? The witness was attached to Scripture itself. John spoke Syriac. Syriac was the National language of the Israelites. When Josephus wrote The Jewish Wars he penned it in Syriac.
I highly recommend you read Moses Stuart's reasons for why it was written before the fall of Jerusalem. If you know of anyone that does a better job than him please let me know.
Lastly, it appears to me based on your responses that you think I am a preterist. I am no Preterist. I am a futurist!
Interesting
I had someone mention the early date for Revelations and I came to similar stance as you Pastor, but I came to the conclusions after they started saying one line by Ireanus wasnt translated correctly 😂. Then someone pointed out the leaven of a early date now causes contradications because you've got Revelation 2, on Ephesus leaving their first love but Ephesians saying they are faithful and such an encouraging letter. Then I thought if it was written that early it'd have to be before the 7 year war and then way would they put Revelation at the end of the bible instead of before the epistles. But I wasnt sure that those arguments held up. Anyways I basically was like uh I just don't see enough information to believe it was written early and if the early date is gonna start causing contradictions in the text I want nothing to do with it that sounds like leaven. I believe it was written in the 90s, but thanks Pastor for all the diligence in your research!
The iron “mixed” with miry clay, these 2 kingdoms were intermingled yet they didn’t mix. If we know Rome was the iron that came after the Grecian dynasty, the clay had to coexist with Rome. Was not God the Potter and His people the clay? Did not the Pharisees cry out - “We have no king but Cesar!” At the judgement seat of Pontius Pilate when he desired to release the “King of the Jews”?
Have you listened to Chuck Baldwin’s interpretation of revelation?
I have. It was interesting, but I didn't feel like it proved anything.
Any prophecy that was fulfilled during the time of the writing of scripture was recorded in scripture. The fulfillment would always be pointed out in scripture by signal phrases telling us that those prophecies were fulfilled. There is no scripture claiming the fulfillment of the end times prophecies. Therefore, they have not been fulfilled. We will know when they are fulfilled because the heaven and earth which are now will be gone and the saved will be in the new heaven and the new earth. Therefore the timing of the writing of the book of Revelation doesn't matter because it hasn't been fulfilled in any part from chapter 6 through chapter 22.
Jesus' own prophecy failed, revelation was written to cope with that.
Matthew 16:27-28
For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every person according to his deeds. “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Apart from this verse in r 9 - One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.
Good video but you neglected to mention what Irenaeus says about antichrist and the future temple
Which is?
Are you familiar with confirmation bias? lol Do you think that skews your "research" just a little. You stated at the start of your video that everything falls apart if Rev isn't dated late and then continued to point out only those sources who support your predetermined outcome. Also your statement "The Bible trumps all history" you can't possibly believe you have done anything that a reputable scholar would support. Come on
In other words, all here say. Third person evidence outside of scripture.
He gave historical references. Personally, I don't think it disproves Pre-mill view even if written in 65 ad. But Post and A-Mill has to have that early date, or it all falls apart.
My thinking is that Revelation was written to gentile churches. So applying it to first century Judea doesn't really fit the audience.
I believe most preterists say that 1st century Jerusalem was Mystery Babylon. I have asked them a question and haven't gotten an answer. How did first century Jerusalem deceive the nations by their centuries and make all nations wealthy by her?
@Ditchdiggerpewsitter I am not denying that there were Jewish believers in the 7 churches. But there were also Gentile believers there. Why do you think none of the 7 churches were in Jerusalem?
Most Bible scholars support the late date authorship of the Book of Revelation to around 96AD approximately 26 years after the destruction of the City of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD. They do this mostly to support the view that the Jew will be given a future 7 years to reestablish the blessings of Abraham to the modern Nation of Israel (See paper Daniel’s-72Weeks). This also would support the idea that the Temple that John was measuring was a FUTURE Temple Rev 11:1-2. This belief supports the idea that all of God’s promises were unconditional which supports the doctrine of “Zionism”. This would also give credence to the rebuilding of a future third temple and a return to Old Covenant practices such as animal sacrifices etc.
On the other hand, many reject the evidences of the early dating of Revelation before 70 AD simply because of a false doctrine called “Preterism”. Let me get one thing straight: “I am NOT a Preterist”. I believe that many things in the Book of Revelation are to happen in the future. So, do not throw out my views on this subject by simply placing me in their camp. Let the facts stand for themselves.
The late date for revelation authorship is primarily supported by some of the, so called, early Church FATHERS to which I respond “call no man your father” Mat 23:9. These external views are neither consistent with each other and are definitely not inspired writings. Church history is so controversial and slanted you cannot rely on it for Biblical truth. The internal views using Scripture should take precedence over Church history and any commentary. Who would listen to these so called “FATHERS” if they couldn’t get the Godhead right? (See paper Godhead vs Trinity)
Most Biblical historians make the statement that John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos by the Roman Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) so that the late date can be justified. But others say that he was exiled to Patmos by the Roman Emperor Nero (54-68 AD). Both of these theories are just that theories. Too much conflicting information for me. There is not even any good Biblical evidence that he was even exiled. He could have went to Patmos for the evangelization of the Island and the edification of the seven Churches of Asia. The verse says “...was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God...” not “was exiled to the isle that is called Patmos” Rev 1:9.
The 40 year gap in the middle of Dan 9:26 after Christ was cutoff till the Roman prince Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD would allow time for the gospel to go to the Jew for 7 years and then to the Gentiles for 33 years (See paper Daniels 72 Weeks). This would allow enough time to pass before the completion of the New Testament Scriptures prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. It seems logical to assume that God would establish the New Testament Scriptures before the Old Covenant “vanished away” when the Second Temple was destroyed in 70AD Heb 8:13. If John had not written Revelation until 96AD, the people would have been in an interim or limbo state without the New Testament or a Temple for 26 years.
John would have also been so old that he would have been ready for the old folk’s home. John is told to measure THE temple not “A” temple. He never mentions the existing Temple and the city being destroyed in 70AD. Notice that he also never comments on or asks about this major event that would have already occurred. Nowhere in the Book of Revelation does John ever even hint that the Jewish Roman War had even happened. This absence gives credence to the before 70ad view. Also the listings of the Seven Roman Caesars is before 70ad (See paper Seven-Roman-Caesars). This would confirm that the disciple John wrote the Book of Revelation before 70AD NOT after 96AD which is a total GUESS.
Another evidence for this view is that Paul wrote 2Co 12:2-7 around 55-56AD and he talked about John’s revelation. So, John must have written Revelation before 70AD. Why would have John waited approximately 46 years (56Ad to 96AD) to write down his Revelation. Paul is talking about the Apostle John who had witnessed the events of the Book of Revelation “fourteen years” before Paul wrote 2Co 12:2-7. Paul knew about this because John was in the process of writing it down. Paul shared about it but he could not share the whole revelation for it was “not lawful for a man to utter” 2Co 12:4. He didn’t name John because he didn’t want to interfere or hamper future events.
After the journey of Saul (Paul) to Damascus, Paul went to meet with Ananias then traveled to Arabia and then returned to Damascus Act 9:1-3 Act 9:17 Gal 1:17. It was three years after his encounter with Christ that he finally went to Jerusalem meeting Peter and James and then he went to Syria and Cilicia Gal 1:17-19 AD 49-50.
CONTINUED...
The prophetic clock stopped because the prophecies were fulfilled.
Unfortunately the enemy has pushed a false belief in Unitarianism. God judged the world once by water and the evidence is everywhere to those who look. Because the enemy is a liar and the father of lies. When he lies he speaks his native tongue.
But wise are those who seek understanding. Those who seek truth
Only because Full Preterists and Amillennialists is the young date coming around….