@@DWW1972 I'm not sure, what does it say? If it contains a link, try to replace the . com with a (dot)com so it doesn't turn into a hyperlink. I think TH-cam is sensitive to spam and deletes hyperlinks that (1) I don't post, or (2) that don't direct to TH-cam (haven't figured out which yet).
@@thebiblesojourner revelation was pre-70, but of course to try to disprove it, you’re desperate to claim it’s post 70. The only late-date proof is poorly misunderstood and overblown statements by ONE man who wasn’t even alive until 2nd century.
To finish ch 22 where I left off in the last comment Additionally, what kind of a cruel joke would God be playing on these poor Christians, to hand them a book to cling too, to read, to understand it and by it they were to know whats coming, and to add they thought when they read their book, it was to be, shortly, quickly, at Hand.… but.… it wasn't, it was really to them just empty words with no value for their situation they were in and with so much worst persecution that history records was about to come upon them. It meant nothing to those it was addressed too. Remember Rev1:1 the referent for the entire book. Lets stop to ask one thing, that is, is this Gods character? Would He hand them something that is meant to encourage them, and that He was about to come, shortly, quickly, at hand, and the writer is their companion in tribulation with them, yet, He knew He really wasn't coming, shortly, Quickly or at Hand, it was going to be over 2,000 years later. Additionally, He inspired John, impressed upon him to write all of this, address it to the seven churches, but again, it had nothing to do with them. The things you are telling us is coming… its not? Here is the truth, God cannot lie nor can He fail, by His word if He did not do “what” He said, and “when” He said it would happen, Deu18:24 then He is a false prophet. I testify that God did “what” He said, “when” He said He would do it. Remember that, if God says “when” He will do something, that is just as important to produce in the time stated, as what He said He would do. For God not to do either one would make Him a false prophet. So yes God is bound to time, only because, In the fact that He gave a time stamp, a time statement, God is bound by His Character And His Name Sake. He said something He would do, and when He said He would do it, and He cannot lie. To whom it was addressed too, Shortly, Quickly, at Hand is not 2,000 years later. Additionally some try and teach that Ch1-3 was for them, the seven Churches in Asia but chapter 4 and on goes to us, I ask, who is man to say it does? If the Book was given to the seven churches, to show them “the things that were to shortly come”, and Ch 2&3 was about getting their house in order before these awful events, what they needed to repent of, then the “things (events) that were to shortly come”, John did not start speaking of these events to come until Ch4, so how can you take the referent for the entire book from who it was given to, at any place, in any chapter. You Hermeneutically cannot take the book from who it was written too, it is their book. It is for all others to live by the principles of it but the physical events Rev1:1, 22:6, were what they saw and experienced themselves. Note just a few other things: Rev22:10 “Seal not the sayings” Question, if God told Daniel to seal the scroll because it was to be, a long time before it would take place, which was, concerning the 70weeks,490 years Dan9, the question is, if God told John not to seal the scrolls because He is about to come and fulfill them.… that is it was about to happen “shortly” v6 but its 2,000 years already and still going, wait a minute something isn't adding up. Daniel, seal the scroll because 490 years is a long time, but John, leave the scroll open for 2,000 years because that is, shortly, quickly, at hand? God even told Israel they would be in bondage for 70 years and said, that was a long time. Revelation is packed with fulfilled scripture. I could on for hours on just Ch1&22... But It is like this in every chapter, irrefutable common sense biblical facts.
So much I want to say on Revelation yet because of the sheer volume and irrefutable “internal evidence” for the early date, I thought because of space, that I would set the proper foundation for understanding the entire book of Revelation. Then show internal evidence. In laying the ground work, that will encompass the whole book of Revelation, Preterist will start with Hermeneutics, the rules of interpretating scripture. The first rule is “Audience Relevance,” what revelance was it, to who it was written too and handed too. CH1, please take time to read and see how clear the message is, that it was written to the seven Churches in Asia, in fact names each one specifically. Revelation was written to them, for them, Rev1:1 is the referent passage for the entire book, this is the reason it was written, that is, to “tell them of things shortly to come.” Follow along please, look at the first generation fulfillment so far, Seven churches in Asia, telling “them” what things are shortly to come. Then Rev1:7 when He comes on clouds, “ those who pierced Him will see Him.” Contextually seamlessly this goes with what Jesus said Matt 16:27, 28 “Some standing here will not die until they see His coming in power” Notice, V3 “at hand” V9 John says, “your brother and companion in tribulation” V19 “write the things which are” this is present tense. As John your companion in tribulation which you is. “The things which are here after” in context, is “the things shortly to come” it connects with “the things that are”, present. So who was on Jesus and Johns mind? To tell them of the things shortly to come, at hand, companion with them in tribulation that they were were presently going through as John wrote to them, comforting them? It was Johns contemporaries the seven churches in Asia that was on their mind, to write the book. Audience Revelance, will not allow us to see Revelation beyond these first generational Christians. Question, where does man have the right to take any chapter from these precious first generation Christians, these, that were going through such persecution that was beyond our imagination? You can study their persecution by internet or many great books. As for now there isn't space to give it the justice needed here. Yet by a study of it, you can see, God by His love and mercy was giving these first generation christians a most needed, at that time in their lives when they needed it the most, He gave them insight on the events that was about to come upon these precious souls. I want to show that the entire book was for that generation. Lets look at Rev22, we will see from the beginning, Ch1 to the end ch22 the entire book is for them. Now I must mentioned what I show isn't anything compared to what more can be said, of and in Ch1 and 22, And every chapter in Revelation is packed with fulfilled scripture, yet again for sake of time and space I will touch just a few points. Rev 22:6 says “ shortly to come”V 10 it is “at hand”. V20 “Surely I come quickly” Remember Audience Revelance, the book was handed to them, and yes, all of it, was for them, more on that in a minute. Rev22:6 is the same language as Ch 1, He was sent to tell “his servants what things are shortly to come”. Now note, things we read, yet you do not hear much said about this, V11 it was so short of a time, in that, Revelation was about to be fulfilled, that He said, “let the unjust stay unjust and the filthy stay filthy” Do we preach that today, if not why not? Your saying Jesus meant for the filthy and unjust to stay that way for 2,000 years and counting? No It had to be an extremely short time for the fulfillment for God to say this. If the book was finished in early to mid ad60’s and Rome began the siege months later…. then that verse makes sense. If not then there is a need to preach the pure Word of God and tell all Christians to let the unjust stay unjust and the filthy to stay filthy
@@thebiblesojourner - I guess maybe my perspective should be explained. Sovereign control to me implies 100% and perfection. Control over every thing and yet we have freewill? Since the Lord has 'already spoken' - does He need to say more? Aren't the scriptures complete and not to be added to? This means that or answers and even our 'God' is 'inside' them. Most everyone I know sees prophecy as a prediction of the future. I say if that is the case then we have control over 'when' a prophecy is fulfilled... and Jesus put it appropriately when He said, "ANYTIME will do." Prophecy is fulfilled in either of two ways. It is fulfilled by waiting on the Lord, or through repentance and thus 'works'. Was Jonah a false prophet? Was Nineveh overturned? Yes they were... but their 'turning' was by their own choice, well, the KINGS choice. What would have happened if they hadn't repented? Or was the 'scare tactic' the whole plan anyways? So the Book of Revelation is prophecy, and if you know how to read it, you will see that it is a plan, a map, a guide of things that should be done, and done 'quickly'. When I use the word 'know' - it takes an uncommon context for me. To 'know' is to produce fruit... even children. So then, to 'know' the PLAN is to... 'do' the plan. To take initiative to manifest it. Sadly very few give any focus to what Jesus taught, and is the reason why even fewer knew what He was 'really' teaching, the intention of it.
@@tylerjohnson1352 - oh and how it is that we are so 'preoccupied' with the future... and happy to sit and wait for it - 'superman' to come flying in to save us. ...from ourselves. Sitting around is not what the scriptures teach, but do reflect the 'reward' you should expect - wages. 🤷♂️
Dear sir, I believe that the book of the Revelation dates itself. If you read Revelation 17:10 it says. “ and there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. The seven kings mentioned here are the first seven emperors of the Roman Empire. Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, were the first four Nero the fifth the one who had fallen (died), June 8th 68 A.D. so the one as the scripture says that “”is” would be Vespasian who actually ascended the throne of the Roman Empire in December of 69 A.D. and ruled until June 23, 79 A.D.. so then the book of the revelation was written between June of 69 A.D. and no later than June 23, 79 A.D. I hope this helps you in some way. YHWH YHWSH bless you
Mark, I fully agree I could write a book on how Revelation dates itself. First Rule of Hermeneutics is ,Audience Relevance, who was it written too and what does each verse have meant to them. Years ago I went with a friend to get some things out if his great great grandfathers house. So neat looking at all the old items, but what caught my I was, I noticed a lot of envelops sitting around, nosy me I had to open one. It was a letter from his great great grandfather in the late 1,800’s, where he was traveling back home from many miles away. He was telling his wife he was coming home should not be long, with all his love he wrote. Let me ask you a question, if I had ran through that house screaming to my friend, your great great granddad is coming home, Hes on his way, it wont be long now, I have his letter look look, what do you think my friend would have thought? Mark, what would you think if I did such a thing? I'm off my rocker? Audience Relevance, Revelation has to be interpreted by what relevance each verse says, for the ones it was written to at that time.
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [j]from the holy city, which are written in this book. 20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. - Rev 22:18 "He who testifies" is John. We know John is speaking to Jesus because he says "Come Lord Jesus" and it makes no sense for Jesus to be talking to Himself. When John says "I am coming quickly" that means John is about to die and see his friend and savior for the first time in 65 years. It's very likely the words in verse 20 are John's dying words. John is direcly dating the book of Revelation to around AD 97 in that verse.
Dr. Goeman, I hope you get to do a podcast or two on Gentry's, and others, view of Revelation from a partial preterist viewpoint. I watched a 3-part video series he did at a conference, and was very unconvinced, too much of a stretch. Have you, or any of your friends read The Divorce of Israel? At $90 and 1,800+ pages, I don't think I will be reading it, lol. There is so much in Revelation I just don't possibly see fitting with AD70: 12,000 x twelve tribes, 2 witnesses, and so much more. They put almost all of their marbles in the AD70 bag, in my opinion.
Hey Mike, I do plan on doing a video in the next month or so which covers the rest of the internal arguments put forward by preterists. Lord willing I will be able to argue at least with the main claims that gentry puts forward. Gentry's new work is not worth it for me to spend $90. It is unlikely he will be putting forward anything new. Given the length of the volumes, it is likely going to be a quantity over quality approach. But I'm definitely willing to look at his new book if he wants to send me a copy :)
@@thebiblesojourner LOL! Yeah, I've heard this book was 10 years in the making. And I thought Thomas' 2-volume tome was plenty. I guess Gentry really is a convinced PP! Looking forward to your future podcasts bro!
@@thebiblesojourner Thanks, I go over this on my channel, where I scrutinize the late date evidence. BTW, in Irenaeus writing "Against Heresies", he was actually referring to Titan seen during the end of the reign of Domitian, not the book of revelation itself, nor John. I go over this on my channel too. Thank you.
Thank you so much for doing these videos! I am genuinely concerned about what appears to be the growing popularity in the Partial Preterist interpretation because I really don’t see how one can be held back from going Full Preterist, outside of a blessed inconsistency that keeps people from falling into heresy. While I have my issues with Idealism and Historicism, being that I am a Futurist and a Premillennialist of the historic variety, Partial Preterism really pastorally concerns me. So, thank you.
I appreciate the encouragement, my friend! May the Lord make these videos useful. I agree with your concern and assessment. I think the pathway from partial preterism to full preterism is quite greasy!
@@andrewmiles2370well, my concern is the slippery slope that partial preterism leaves itself open to to fall into full preterism. And the concern with full preterism is that it is heresy. It denies the future coming bodily resurrection, so my concern with PP is how easily one could fall into FP and thus fall outside of the faith once for all handed down to the saints. Look at someone like Gary DeMar who was a leading proponent of PP who has since fallen into FP, although he had been warned by other leading PP proponents. That is my primary concern.
@@andrewmiles2370 My concern is that Full preterism denies the bodily resurrection of the saints and the bodily return of Christ--both of which have been crucial parts of Scripture and Christian belief. Partial preterism is a pathway to full preterism via a subjective hermeneutic that takes 2nd coming passages and tries to apply them to AD 70. As a result, some well meaning partial preterists have taught that Jesus will not return for thousands of years still. This conflicts with Jesus' plain teaching to be reading for His appearing.
@@andrewmiles2370 I am really surprised neither of these people mentioned that FP do not believe in a bodily resurrection. They believe that sin and death go on forever on this earth, there is no NHNE.
Great question! There are variety of chronological markers within the gospels, such as variety of censuses and various rulers that are mentioned. We can cross reference that with what we know about her the great and his death, since that would give us a rough birthdate for Jesus. We also roughly know the date of the crucifixion in either 30 A.D. or 33 A.D. so, although I don’t think we can stay with 100% certainty, give or take a year we can date Jesus is birth and death. And the years would total in his 30s. That also would fit with Luke’s own testimony where he says that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry.
@@thebiblesojourner ....and thus more notes that neither support the criteria of the identity portrayed in Revelation 13. They simply do not tick the boxes of the CV requirements. There will be many anti-Christs but only one Anti-Christ and that person/identity is yet to be revealed. Pretersim is such a failure.
It is widely accepted that James and John (whom Christ called the "Sons of Thunder") were the youngest of The Twelve. John would have been around 22 at the time of the Crucifixion, making him about 87 in AD 95.
Bible Sojourner. I can't remember if I've previously made this comment on your channel. However, in regard Preterism, which some say is a devised doctrine to deflect critism of the Catholic church, the identification of the 'little horn' or antichrist is important to its opposition. Here are the clues found in the book of Revelation itself, which no one talks about concerning the 'little horn' antichrist. These clues show that the antichrist is a kingdom. It is the kingdom which is Babel/Bavel/Babylon. The antichrist/little horn is not a man (singular) as the church has been erroneously led to believe by translators with a previous biased conception of a singular man. When the Greek text does not say 'a man'. A correct translation would be - mankind or human kind. The 'little horn/antichrist' is the kingdom of man/mankind which first arose at Babel in full rebellion to God. Here are the clues to this kingdom which is to be resurrected in the last days; *It is the kingdom, 'Which once was (before John's time of writing), now is not, but would come again (be resurrected in the last days)'. In regards to its status as 'anti' in its title of antichrist (in place of Christ), compare this statement to the statement of Rev 1:4, concerning Christ Jesus; 'who is, and who was, and who is to come'. For this kingdom, which was Babel, purports to 'save' mankind, apart from Christ. More about that later. *It is the kingdom which is 'an eighth king/kingdom which belongs to the seven (the seven other kingdoms that are the representation of the beast)', Rev 17:11. It becomes an eighth by starting out as an eleventh horn/kingdom growing up after and displacing three of the ten horns to become an eighth. The number eight is significant because, in scripture, it symbolizes 'resurrection'. While the number seven is symbolic for 'complete/completion/whole'. And in the representation of the seven headed beast 'out of the sea' of Rev 13:1, it revealing that this beast is the chronologically complete (the seven heads), Gentile (out of the sea of Gentiles - peoples, nations, tribes and languages') kingdoms which were to come, as spoken of by Daniel 7 - Babylon, the head of gold and the LION; Medo/Persia, the chest of silver and the BEAR; Greece, the belly of bronze and the LEOPARD; Rome, the frightening beast, the legs of iron and bronze (Greek claws). And reiterated by John in Rev 13:2, 'The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. *It is the kingdom 'which was wounded by the sword and yet lived', Rev 13:3,12 &14. And the 'wound' it recieved was the wound of dispersion when God went down to Babel and saw their unified rebellion and said, if they be unified like this, as one, nothing will be impossible for them. He then 'wounded' mankind's attempt to unify in rebellion (apostasia) to God, by confusing their language and scattering them over the face of the earth. In these last days, mankind is back seeking unity. His 'wound of disperion' having been healed, he/man/mankind is once again seeking to complete the rebellion (apostasia) which he attempted at Babel. To rule himself as lord and master of his own destiny, apart from/in place of God and his Christ. This is the delusion that is sent to the whole world - 'all who are perishing', that they become willing participents, honoring the beast with their allegiance. And in this way proving their guilt. Because they loved the darkness, instead of the light. Cheers
Thanks for watching brother! I doubt preterism is an doctrine intended to deflect criticism from the Catholic Church, but I haven't looked into that possibility too much. I appreciate your thoughts on the little horn--I'm hopeful that one day I can do an examination of that theme. That would be a great episode to do.
@@thebiblesojourner why are you working so hard on a topic like this to argue a later date? What is your ultimate motive? To make 70AD seem like there’s no historical relevance? To make it seem even more odd that Jesus prophesied something in his disciples day but tricked them into it all Being future? Why ignore Josephus? I think all you would need to do is simply read Josephus and you would stop this nonsense of late dating. It doesn’t make sense of revelation nor the entire Bible having no reference to post destruction of the temple.
Regarding the earthquake in Laodicea on AD 60 (at 34:30 min). You are saying that it’s hard to believe that John would refer to them as rich in AD 65 and “have need of nothing.” After all the construction projects may have lasted over a period of 30 years. But why are construction projects incompatible with John referring to them as rich in AD 65? Clearly, Tacitus tells us that the city refused Rome’s “FEMA funding,” because they were so wealthy and rebuilt with their own money. So just on these facts, why is John unlikely to have called them rich in AD 65? They had a reputation for being rich, they were in the process of rebuilding, and there is no evidence that they became poor during this rebuilding process. So, I don’t get it? What’s the problem that this poses for an AD 65 date? Laodicea was rich-being 5 years into the middle of a rebuilding project for the major building projects doesn’t make John’s statement unlikely. In fact, it confirms it. It makes sense that they would boast to have “need of nothing,” in the first years after the earthquake. The evidence actually seems to support AD 65, as the boast would be fresh. AD 95 has no similar event giving historical context to such a boast. I just don’t see the supposed strength of this negative argument.
I appreciate your perspective and the points you’ve raised. I would offer a couple points of rebuttle. In the modern world, with technologies like global banking, it's indeed possible for someone to retain wealth despite losing their home. However, in the ancient world, wealth was more localized and tangible, often measured in material possessions and production rather than in bank accounts. Earthquakes were often completely devastating (as records show), and recovery was typically slower and more challenging. Some cities never recovered at all, remaining unbuilt (for example, Beth Shean in Israel in 749-devestated and never recovered even though it was an impressive city). A good example of the devestation would be the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan. Despite modern technology, national and international aid, and advanced machinery, their rebuilding process was prolonged. By 2000, they had scarcely reached 50% of their original production capacities, and homes and buildings were still unbuilt. Similarly, Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans showed how even with modern aid and technology, recovery can take many years. To suggest that ancient Laodicea could have rebuilt faster than modern cities would certainly be overestimating the capabilities of the time. The idea that Laodicea retained untouched wealth despite economic and structural collapse, and was still seen as an opulent city without needs, is hard to reconcile with historical realities. Many preterists do see this as an issue, which is why there's a range of views on the matter. Some suggest rapid reconstruction or the possibility that the church itself wasn't as affected. I think one needs some way of dealing with the evidence. I don’t think it is correct to assume that their wealth was the modern kind of wealth that sits in Swiss Bank accounts. I think the more one studies natural disasters in the ancient world, the more one appreciates the singificance of this evidence.
@@thebiblesojourner Laodicea was a commercial and financial centre, being the equivalent to a state capital, and in a busy trade route. Indeed, they were able to mint their own coins. It's citizens comprised many of the rich and famous of the day, and they did indeed keep great quantities of wealth stored in various ways and places outside of the city. Even back then they knew about diversification. So this to me is why them declining imperial funding for the rebuilding is contributory evidence that they very much were still fabulously wealthy as a city, even immediately after the earthquake. And that as the OP here says, fits perfectly with them saying they have need of nothing. Of course there were severe consequences and losses, but clearly they were still wealthy. So it seems to me that whether or not they were completely rebuilt by the time of the writing of the Apocalypse is not really relevant? It also seems to me that neither rapid rebuilding, nor the extent of the local church being affected, are necessary, in order to confirm Laodicea being rich. This in my opinion would make the historical evidence here very favourable to early dating, though being charitable it could simply be neutral. Thanks for the great discussions!
@@andrewmiles2370, Those are very good points. I also am persuaded by them. Having classical training in history and law, It's really not because I have an axe to grind for orthodox preterism. But simply because arguments like "Laodicea could not have still been rich in AD65 after an earthquake five years before" are built on a lot of historical presumption. And when we look at the details and don't assume "construction equals poverty" and "their wealth must have only be local and not diversified" (never mind counter examples and the imperial nature of wealth at the time), the argument tends to fall apart. One need not prove "rapid re-construction." The fact that Roman historians, long after the fact, note the wealth of the city and its ability to rebuild on its own proves the point that long term building projects and wealth in the Laodicean case (irrespective of historical counterexamples, ancient or modern) went together. As you say, at the very least it might be considered neutral evidence. But even that raises the very problem that Dr. Goeman raises...people tend to see the historical evidence from the side of "is it possibly compatible with my view." That is understandable, but it affects the futurist on these issues as much as the preterist. It is actually difficult to find historically contradictory and decisive evidence. But it does exist. And like this example, it often ends up, not just being compatible or neutral, but is evidence for preterism. Especially when taken in the abductive or cumulative evidential form of argument. Total respect for people who arn't there yet. Any honest preterist will also acknowledge holes in his own view. But that is the challenge of prophesy, we all see a glass darkly.
@@jrhemmerich quite agree! I've found it a rich source of joy studying history and seeing how wonderfully accurate our scriptures are - I was an atheist till three years ago and thought it was all mythology. I've just remembered RE. Laodicea: Revelation 3 [18] "I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. " This speaks to three ways Laodicea became rich and famous: They sold gold! And commodities generally. Here, Jesus is mocking their gold. They famously produced black wool! Jesus directly rebukes this as beneath His standards for His saints. They were a centre of medicine and learning for the time! But Jesus points out the ineffectual nature of their remedies. What a mighty Redeemer we have!
@@andrewmiles2370, that is so very encouraging to hear your story. My faith also has been greatly strengthened to understand that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23-24 helps to unveil the prophesies in Daniel (we are told to understand what Daniel was told he would not, for the time was far off, but “at hand” for the Apostles). Understanding that “cloud coming” is an OT picture of God’s judgment through historical events on the earth (Isa. 19:1) which Jesus appropriates to himself, really solidified my view that Jesus really meant that all the things spoken about the fall of the temple were to happen in that generation. It is quite distinct from the physical descent/return of Jesus (Acts 1:11, 3:18-20, 1Thess. 4:13-18, Rev. 20:9-14, 21:4). Amazingly, the cloud coming in judgment happened right on time. The fall of the temple and the old order of worship in AD 70 is a historical confirmation of the new covenant order set up by Christ’s substitutionary death for us (Heb. 9:8-10; 12:26-27). Revelation speaks of the fall of the great city, Jerusalem, which is the city where the Lord was crucified (Rev. 11:8). The time period for the war against Israel by the Romans is 42 months of the city, when the Romans declare war about April/May of 67 and send Vespasian into Galilee and Judea until the fall of the temple in August/September of 70 (3.5 years). The siege of Jerusalem is also described as five month (Rev. 9:3) and Josephus says that the siege of the Romans began in April/May (Ilyar) and ended in August/September (Av 10th, was the burning of the Temple). So the siege (where people were harmed by the siege engines “scorpions” whose power was in their tail, but where the city was not subject to mass slaughter was 5 months. All of the details and many others are what convince me. Though one has to be cautious to not go over board on the details, but to accept them where they can be found. Often a lack of reliable history is the problem. Not scripture. But I will say that this has been a later confirmatory evidences for me. I was already a Christian and had been convinced by other history and philosophy about the meaning of Jesus and the cross much prior to my views on Revelation (though I was introduced to a historical interpretation Mathew 24 in my early teens. I’m curious, was eschatology a minor piece in your recent conversion or more significant? I do think Revelation important, but I would still rank it as secondary to the primary issues (a capstone to scripture and the new covenant understanding). Though I do think it very helpful not to be so confused by such things as I once was. But maybe that is maturity and the battle now is holding on to a bit of humility in the midst of my developing confidence. Not to burden you with my questions or curiosity. Blessings.
Revelation was written 14 years before 2 Corinthians was written. "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows."
That’s a very intriguing theory, but Paul says in the next verse: “and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter” (2 Cor 12:4). So if man may not utter it it is not Revelation.
@@thebiblesojourner thank you for your reply. This comment by the Apostle Paul is in relation to Apostle John's experience & what he documents in Revelation 10. The similarity of these two such strange experiences, such as Rev 10:4 and 2Cor 12:4 document, seems incredible that they are not related. Rev 10.4 4And when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down.”
@@rfnecio I suppose it is possible. But it seems selective to take 2 Cor 12:3 and say it refers to Revelation, but 12:4 refers only to Revelation 10? If you have something more that I can read on this I'd love to do more research!
Well that date is only possible if you try to fit everything into the book of Acts. That’s a pretty sketchy prospect in my mind (and most books tend to agree). But it’s a good theory to try with the evidence.
Redating the New Testament by John A. T. Robinson (Author) On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr. Robinson defends that the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 70....contradicting, of course, the consensus of generations of Bible scholars.
Doesnt John just self date Revelation to AD 95/96? "He who testifies says "I am coming quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. - Rev. 22:20". "He who testifies" is John and we know John is speaking to Jesus because the words "Come, Lord Jesus". So when John says *to Jesus* the words "I am coming quickly" it means John is writing on his deathbed and is about to go see his friend and Savior for the first time in over 60 years. By that verse, alone, John is literally telling us the approximate year in which he is writing Revelation. Petsonally, I suspect the words "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" are John's last words before he died.
It is certainly possible, though it is also possible to interpret that verse different ways. I would say it is definitely an intriguing argument, though not conclusive (at least to me--maybe I'm wrong!).
@thebiblesojourner it's conclusive. I've spent a lot of time on that verse. Compare the wording in Rev 1:1-2 and Rev 20:15-19. John 5:31 is also dire tly relevant. I'm on my phone but I can explain in more detail when I have access to my PC TONIGHT
@@asherjacobson597, it just strikes me as odd that you turn action that is focused on Jesus into John dying and going to Jesus. The phrase is repeated at the end of the book and the events of the book are “at hand.” I don’t see any context that points to John’s death as being the coming of Jesus. On the contrary, it seems to have meaning for a wide number of the readers of the book. But, I’d be curious to see what you have to say.
Preterism is no more stubborn in the flesh than Covenant Theology in denying the reality of Bible texts and of prophecies. I am frightened how that you can read all of Rom. Eleven and Jewish Israel is the remnant and broken off branches and hardened and blinded and Paul's own race, and suddenly in verse 25, by influx of Gentiles all Israel will be saved! Spooky!
Well, it is attractive because of the false certainty it creates. But I agree... it is concerning that one can adopt a loose hermeneutic to fit certain events into the prophecies.
"By influx of Gentiles all Israel will be saved." ??? Only a remnant of Israel will be saved. That remnant will be "all of Israel" when all is said and done. What has that got to do with the Gentiles?
@@bugsocsollie1694 the influx of Gentiles into the Church has nothing to do with all Israel being saved. That is my point. All Israel will be Jews. All Israel will be Israel..
@@bugsocsollie1694 But faithfulness to Romans 11:25 demands that we recognize that the mystery reveals the relative time of the ending of the remnant only basis of the salvation of Israel. The verse 26 all Israel shows that the remnant has swallowed the whole. No longer will only a remnant be saved into the Church. But God has returned to His program with the Jews, no longer only a remnant coming into the Church.
@@bugsocsollie1694 the fullness of the Gentiles coming into the Church is the time marker for the end of the Church. The Church is one new man composed of Gentiles and Jews together UNDISTINGUISHED. This is God's program and God's rules, not ours. But when GOD changes how He works, this marks a dispensational change, by definition.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
For a detailed discussion on the external evidence on dating the book of Revelation --> th-cam.com/video/28qGKeYObZE/w-d-xo.html
Peter do you know why my comment gets taken down?
@@DWW1972 I'm not sure, what does it say? If it contains a link, try to replace the . com with a (dot)com so it doesn't turn into a hyperlink. I think TH-cam is sensitive to spam and deletes hyperlinks that (1) I don't post, or (2) that don't direct to TH-cam (haven't figured out which yet).
Ok thank you
@@thebiblesojourner revelation was pre-70, but of course to try to disprove it, you’re desperate to claim it’s post 70.
The only late-date proof is poorly misunderstood and overblown statements by ONE man who wasn’t even alive until 2nd century.
Brother, you are doing a great job. Thanks a lot for your labour.
Really appreciate the encouragement. Praise the Lord that it can be useful!
To finish ch 22 where I left off in the last comment
Additionally, what kind of a cruel joke would God be playing on these poor Christians, to hand them a book to cling too, to read, to understand it and by it they were to know whats coming, and to add they thought when they read their book, it was to be, shortly, quickly, at Hand.… but.… it wasn't, it was really to them just empty words with no value for their situation they were in and with so much worst persecution that history records was about to come upon them. It meant nothing to those it was addressed too.
Remember Rev1:1 the referent for the entire book.
Lets stop to ask one thing, that is, is this Gods character? Would He hand them something that is meant to encourage them, and that He was about to come, shortly, quickly, at hand, and the writer is their companion in tribulation with them, yet, He knew He really wasn't coming, shortly, Quickly or at Hand, it was going to be over 2,000 years later. Additionally, He inspired John, impressed upon him to write all of this, address it to the seven churches, but again, it had nothing to do with them. The things you are telling us is coming… its not? Here is the truth, God cannot lie nor can He fail, by His word if He did not do “what” He said, and “when” He said it would happen,
Deu18:24 then He is a false prophet.
I testify that God did “what” He said, “when” He said He would do it.
Remember that, if God says “when”
He will do something, that is just as important to produce in the time stated, as what He said He would do. For God not to do either one would make Him a false prophet. So yes God is bound to time, only because, In the fact that He gave a time stamp, a time statement, God is bound by His Character And His Name Sake.
He said something He would do, and when He said He would do it, and He cannot lie. To whom it was addressed too, Shortly, Quickly, at Hand is not 2,000 years later.
Additionally some try and teach that Ch1-3 was for them, the seven Churches in Asia but chapter 4 and on goes to us, I ask, who is man to say it does? If the Book was given to the seven churches, to show them “the things that were to shortly come”, and Ch 2&3 was about getting their house in order before these awful events, what they needed to repent of, then the “things (events) that were to shortly come”, John did not start speaking of these events to come until Ch4, so how can you take the referent for the entire book from who it was given to, at any place, in any chapter. You Hermeneutically cannot take the book from who it was written too, it is their book. It is for all others to live by the principles of it but the physical events Rev1:1, 22:6, were what they saw and experienced themselves.
Note just a few other things:
Rev22:10
“Seal not the sayings”
Question, if God told Daniel to seal the scroll because it was to be, a long time before it would take place, which was, concerning the 70weeks,490 years Dan9,
the question is, if God told John not to seal the scrolls because He is about to come and fulfill them.… that is it was about to happen “shortly” v6 but its 2,000 years already and still going, wait a minute something isn't adding up.
Daniel, seal the scroll because 490 years is a long time, but John, leave the scroll open for 2,000 years because that is, shortly, quickly, at hand?
God even told Israel they would be in bondage for 70 years and said, that was a long time.
Revelation is packed with fulfilled scripture. I could on for hours on just Ch1&22... But It is like this in every chapter, irrefutable common sense biblical facts.
So much I want to say on
Revelation yet because of the sheer volume and irrefutable “internal evidence” for the early date, I thought because of space, that I would set the proper foundation for understanding the entire book of Revelation. Then show internal evidence.
In laying the ground work, that will encompass the whole book of Revelation,
Preterist will start with Hermeneutics, the rules of interpretating scripture. The first rule is
“Audience Relevance,” what revelance was it, to who it was written too and handed too.
CH1, please take time to read and see how clear the message is, that it was written to the seven Churches in Asia, in fact names each one specifically.
Revelation was written to them, for them, Rev1:1 is the referent passage for the entire book, this is the reason it was written, that is, to “tell them of things shortly to come.”
Follow along please, look at the first generation fulfillment so far,
Seven churches in Asia, telling “them” what things are shortly to come.
Then Rev1:7
when He comes on clouds,
“ those who pierced Him will see Him.”
Contextually seamlessly this goes
with what Jesus said Matt 16:27, 28
“Some standing here will not die until they see His coming in power”
Notice,
V3 “at hand”
V9 John says, “your brother and companion in tribulation”
V19 “write the things which are” this is present tense.
As John your companion in tribulation which you is.
“The things which are here after” in context, is “the things shortly to come” it connects with “the things that are”, present.
So who was on Jesus and Johns mind? To tell them of the things shortly to come, at hand, companion with them in tribulation
that they were were presently going through as John wrote to them, comforting them?
It was Johns contemporaries the seven churches in Asia that was on their mind, to write the book.
Audience Revelance, will not allow us to see Revelation beyond these first generational Christians.
Question, where does man have the right to take any chapter from these precious first generation Christians, these, that were going through such persecution that was beyond our imagination? You can study their persecution by internet or many great books. As for now there isn't space to give it the justice needed here. Yet by a study of it, you can see, God by His love and mercy was giving these first generation christians a most needed, at that time in their lives when they needed it the most, He gave them insight on the events that was about to come upon these precious souls.
I want to show that the entire book was for that generation.
Lets look at Rev22, we will see from the beginning, Ch1 to the end ch22 the entire book is for them.
Now I must mentioned what I show isn't anything compared to what more can be said, of and in Ch1 and 22, And every chapter in Revelation is packed with fulfilled scripture, yet again for sake of time and space I will touch just a few points.
Rev 22:6 says “ shortly to come”V 10 it is “at hand”. V20
“Surely I come quickly”
Remember Audience Revelance, the book was handed to them, and yes, all of it, was for them, more on that in a minute.
Rev22:6 is the same language as Ch 1, He was sent to tell “his servants what things are shortly to come”.
Now note, things we read, yet you do not hear much said about this,
V11 it was so short of a time, in that, Revelation was about to be fulfilled, that He said, “let the unjust stay unjust and the filthy stay filthy” Do we preach that today, if not why not? Your saying Jesus meant for the filthy and unjust to stay that way for 2,000 years and counting?
No It had to be an extremely short time for the fulfillment for God to say this. If the book was finished in early to mid ad60’s and Rome began the siege months later…. then that verse makes sense. If not then there is a need to preach the pure Word of God and tell all Christians to let the unjust stay unjust and the filthy to stay filthy
2:38 I think that knowing what is going to happen ahead of time is not the point, but instead to point to a time to know. 2:38
That’s a good thought, but I also don’t think those are mutually exclusive. It can certainly include both.
@@thebiblesojourner - I guess maybe my perspective should be explained. Sovereign control to me implies 100% and perfection. Control over every thing and yet we have freewill?
Since the Lord has 'already spoken' - does He need to say more? Aren't the scriptures complete and not to be added to? This means that or answers and even our 'God' is 'inside' them.
Most everyone I know sees prophecy as a prediction of the future. I say if that is the case then we have control over 'when' a prophecy is fulfilled... and Jesus put it appropriately when He said, "ANYTIME will do."
Prophecy is fulfilled in either of two ways. It is fulfilled by waiting on the Lord, or through repentance and thus 'works'.
Was Jonah a false prophet? Was Nineveh overturned? Yes they were... but their 'turning' was by their own choice, well, the KINGS choice. What would have happened if they hadn't repented? Or was the 'scare tactic' the whole plan anyways?
So the Book of Revelation is prophecy, and if you know how to read it, you will see that it is a plan, a map, a guide of things that should be done, and done 'quickly'.
When I use the word 'know' - it takes an uncommon context for me. To 'know' is to produce fruit... even children. So then, to 'know' the PLAN is to... 'do' the plan. To take initiative to manifest it.
Sadly very few give any focus to what Jesus taught, and is the reason why even fewer knew what He was 'really' teaching, the intention of it.
@@ChrisMusante so are you saying we need to more manifest Christ, His Kingdom, His Plan Now which is occupying vs being preoccupied with Future?
@@tylerjohnson1352 - oh and how it is that we are so 'preoccupied' with the future... and happy to sit and wait for it - 'superman' to come flying in to save us. ...from ourselves.
Sitting around is not what the scriptures teach, but do reflect the 'reward' you should expect - wages. 🤷♂️
Outstanding’
Glad it was helpful! Praise God!
Dear sir,
I believe that the book of the Revelation dates itself.
If you read Revelation 17:10 it says. “ and there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
The seven kings mentioned here are the first seven emperors of the Roman Empire.
Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, were the first four Nero the fifth the one who had fallen (died), June 8th 68 A.D.
so the one as the scripture says that “”is” would be Vespasian who actually ascended the throne of the Roman Empire in December of 69 A.D. and ruled until June 23, 79 A.D.. so then the book of the revelation was written between June of 69 A.D. and no later than June 23, 79 A.D. I hope this helps you in some way.
YHWH YHWSH bless you
Appreciate this. I hope to cover this issue in a future video.
Mark, I fully agree I could write a book on how Revelation dates itself.
First Rule of Hermeneutics is ,Audience Relevance, who was it written too and what does each verse have meant to them.
Years ago I went with a friend to get some things out if his great great grandfathers house. So neat looking at all the old items, but what caught my I was, I noticed a lot of envelops sitting around, nosy me I had to open one. It was a letter from his great great grandfather in the late 1,800’s, where he was traveling back home from many miles away. He was telling his wife he was coming home should not be long, with all his love he wrote. Let me ask you a question, if I had ran through that house screaming to my friend, your great great granddad is coming home, Hes on his way, it wont be long now, I have his letter look look, what do you think my friend would have thought? Mark, what would you think if I did such a thing? I'm off my rocker?
Audience Relevance, Revelation has to be interpreted by what relevance each verse says, for the ones it was written to at that time.
Agree.
@@thebiblesojourner you won’t be able to brother. It’s simple and irrefutable and you’re working too hard on a topic that should come with ease.
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [j]from the holy city, which are written in this book.
20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. - Rev 22:18
"He who testifies" is John. We know John is speaking to Jesus because he says "Come Lord Jesus" and it makes no sense for Jesus to be talking to Himself. When John says "I am coming quickly" that means John is about to die and see his friend and savior for the first time in 65 years. It's very likely the words in verse 20 are John's dying words.
John is direcly dating the book of Revelation to around AD 97 in that verse.
Dr. Goeman, I hope you get to do a podcast or two on Gentry's, and others, view of Revelation from a partial preterist viewpoint. I watched a 3-part video series he did at a conference, and was very unconvinced, too much of a stretch. Have you, or any of your friends read The Divorce of Israel? At $90 and 1,800+ pages, I don't think I will be reading it, lol. There is so much in Revelation I just don't possibly see fitting with AD70: 12,000 x twelve tribes, 2 witnesses, and so much more. They put almost all of their marbles in the AD70 bag, in my opinion.
Hey Mike, I do plan on doing a video in the next month or so which covers the rest of the internal arguments put forward by preterists. Lord willing I will be able to argue at least with the main claims that gentry puts forward. Gentry's new work is not worth it for me to spend $90. It is unlikely he will be putting forward anything new. Given the length of the volumes, it is likely going to be a quantity over quality approach. But I'm definitely willing to look at his new book if he wants to send me a copy :)
@@thebiblesojourner LOL! Yeah, I've heard this book was 10 years in the making. And I thought Thomas' 2-volume tome was plenty. I guess Gentry really is a convinced PP! Looking forward to your future podcasts bro!
All the late date evidence falls apart when 👀 more closely and thinking through more carefully.
Appreciate your thoughts on this. Obviously I disagree with that, but always enjoy friendly debate on the issue!
@@thebiblesojourner Thanks, I go over this on my channel, where I scrutinize the late date evidence. BTW, in Irenaeus writing "Against Heresies", he was actually referring to Titan seen during the end of the reign of Domitian, not the book of revelation itself, nor John. I go over this on my channel too.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for doing these videos! I am genuinely concerned about what appears to be the growing popularity in the Partial Preterist interpretation because I really don’t see how one can be held back from going Full Preterist, outside of a blessed inconsistency that keeps people from falling into heresy. While I have my issues with Idealism and Historicism, being that I am a Futurist and a Premillennialist of the historic variety, Partial Preterism really pastorally concerns me. So, thank you.
I appreciate the encouragement, my friend! May the Lord make these videos useful. I agree with your concern and assessment. I think the pathway from partial preterism to full preterism is quite greasy!
Out of curiosity, what's your pastoral concern with partial and full preterism?
@@andrewmiles2370well, my concern is the slippery slope that partial preterism leaves itself open to to fall into full preterism. And the concern with full preterism is that it is heresy. It denies the future coming bodily resurrection, so my concern with PP is how easily one could fall into FP and thus fall outside of the faith once for all handed down to the saints. Look at someone like Gary DeMar who was a leading proponent of PP who has since fallen into FP, although he had been warned by other leading PP proponents. That is my primary concern.
@@andrewmiles2370 My concern is that Full preterism denies the bodily resurrection of the saints and the bodily return of Christ--both of which have been crucial parts of Scripture and Christian belief. Partial preterism is a pathway to full preterism via a subjective hermeneutic that takes 2nd coming passages and tries to apply them to AD 70. As a result, some well meaning partial preterists have taught that Jesus will not return for thousands of years still. This conflicts with Jesus' plain teaching to be reading for His appearing.
@@andrewmiles2370 I am really surprised neither of these people mentioned that FP do not believe in a bodily resurrection. They believe that sin and death go on forever on this earth, there is no NHNE.
I don’t hate you at all. Appreciate you and your work.
Your encouragement is a blessing. Thank you!
How do we know how old Jesus was when he died?
Great question! There are variety of chronological markers within the gospels, such as variety of censuses and various rulers that are mentioned. We can cross reference that with what we know about her the great and his death, since that would give us a rough birthdate for Jesus. We also roughly know the date of the crucifixion in either 30 A.D. or 33 A.D. so, although I don’t think we can stay with 100% certainty, give or take a year we can date Jesus is birth and death. And the years would total in his 30s. That also would fit with Luke’s own testimony where he says that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry.
What if He saw him AFTER He resurrected and He actually lived here? 🤔
Was Nero's persecution focus on the church on the Italian peninsula and Domitian's persecution more broader throughout the empire.
It seems Nero’s persecution was fairly limited to Rome and Domitian persecution was less organized but more extensive.
@@thebiblesojourner ....and thus more notes that neither support the criteria of the identity portrayed in Revelation 13. They simply do not tick the boxes of the CV requirements. There will be many anti-Christs but only one Anti-Christ and that person/identity is yet to be revealed. Pretersim is such a failure.
...ah, you do get there in this video 😊@@thebiblesojourner
If John wrote it, then he had to be still alive, right?
Seems like sound logic to me!
It is widely accepted that James and John (whom Christ called the "Sons of Thunder") were the youngest of The Twelve. John would have been around 22 at the time of the Crucifixion, making him about 87 in AD 95.
Bible Sojourner.
I can't remember if I've previously made this comment on your channel. However, in regard Preterism, which some say is a devised doctrine to deflect critism of the Catholic church, the identification of the 'little horn' or antichrist is important to its opposition. Here are the clues found in the book of Revelation itself, which no one talks about concerning the 'little horn' antichrist.
These clues show that the antichrist is a kingdom. It is the kingdom which is Babel/Bavel/Babylon. The antichrist/little horn is not a man (singular) as the church has been erroneously led to believe by translators with a previous biased conception of a singular man. When the Greek text does not say 'a man'. A correct translation would be - mankind or human kind.
The 'little horn/antichrist' is the kingdom of man/mankind which first arose at Babel in full rebellion to God. Here are the clues to this kingdom which is to be resurrected in the last days;
*It is the kingdom, 'Which once was (before John's time of writing), now is not, but would come again (be resurrected in the last days)'. In regards to its status as 'anti' in its title of antichrist (in place of Christ), compare this statement to the statement of Rev 1:4, concerning Christ Jesus; 'who is, and who was, and who is to come'. For this kingdom, which was Babel, purports to 'save' mankind, apart from Christ. More about that later.
*It is the kingdom which is 'an eighth king/kingdom which belongs to the seven (the seven other kingdoms that are the representation of the beast)', Rev 17:11. It becomes an eighth by starting out as an eleventh horn/kingdom growing up after and displacing three of the ten horns to become an eighth. The number eight is significant because, in scripture, it symbolizes 'resurrection'. While the number seven is symbolic for 'complete/completion/whole'. And in the representation of the seven headed beast 'out of the sea' of Rev 13:1, it revealing that this beast is the chronologically complete (the seven heads), Gentile (out of the sea of Gentiles - peoples, nations, tribes and languages') kingdoms which were to come, as spoken of by Daniel 7 - Babylon, the head of gold and the LION; Medo/Persia, the chest of silver and the BEAR; Greece, the belly of bronze and the LEOPARD; Rome, the frightening beast, the legs of iron and bronze (Greek claws). And reiterated by John in Rev 13:2, 'The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion.
*It is the kingdom 'which was wounded by the sword and yet lived', Rev 13:3,12 &14. And the 'wound' it recieved was the wound of dispersion when God went down to Babel and saw their unified rebellion and said, if they be unified like this, as one, nothing will be impossible for them. He then 'wounded' mankind's attempt to unify in rebellion (apostasia) to God, by confusing their language and scattering them over the face of the earth.
In these last days, mankind is back seeking unity. His 'wound of disperion' having been healed, he/man/mankind is once again seeking to complete the rebellion (apostasia) which he attempted at Babel. To rule himself as lord and master of his own destiny, apart from/in place of God and his Christ.
This is the delusion that is sent to the whole world - 'all who are perishing', that they become willing participents, honoring the beast with their allegiance. And in this way proving their guilt. Because they loved the darkness, instead of the light. Cheers
Thanks for watching brother! I doubt preterism is an doctrine intended to deflect criticism from the Catholic Church, but I haven't looked into that possibility too much. I appreciate your thoughts on the little horn--I'm hopeful that one day I can do an examination of that theme. That would be a great episode to do.
@@thebiblesojourner why are you working so hard on a topic like this to argue a later date? What is your ultimate motive? To make 70AD seem like there’s no historical relevance? To make it seem even more odd that Jesus prophesied something in his disciples day but tricked them into it all Being future? Why ignore Josephus? I think all you would need to do is simply read Josephus and you would stop this nonsense of late dating. It doesn’t make sense of revelation nor the entire Bible having no reference to post destruction of the temple.
Regarding the earthquake in Laodicea on AD 60 (at 34:30 min). You are saying that it’s hard to believe that John would refer to them as rich in AD 65 and “have need of nothing.” After all the construction projects may have lasted over a period of 30 years.
But why are construction projects incompatible with John referring to them as rich in AD 65?
Clearly, Tacitus tells us that the city refused Rome’s “FEMA funding,” because they were so wealthy and rebuilt with their own money.
So just on these facts, why is John unlikely to have called them rich in AD 65? They had a reputation for being rich, they were in the process of rebuilding, and there is no evidence that they became poor during this rebuilding process.
So, I don’t get it? What’s the problem that this poses for an AD 65 date?
Laodicea was rich-being 5 years into the middle of a rebuilding project for the major building projects doesn’t make John’s statement unlikely. In fact, it confirms it. It makes sense that they would boast to have “need of nothing,” in the first years after the earthquake.
The evidence actually seems to support AD 65, as the boast would be fresh.
AD 95 has no similar event giving historical context to such a boast.
I just don’t see the supposed strength of this negative argument.
I appreciate your perspective and the points you’ve raised. I would offer a couple points of rebuttle.
In the modern world, with technologies like global banking, it's indeed possible for someone to retain wealth despite losing their home. However, in the ancient world, wealth was more localized and tangible, often measured in material possessions and production rather than in bank accounts. Earthquakes were often completely devastating (as records show), and recovery was typically slower and more challenging. Some cities never recovered at all, remaining unbuilt (for example, Beth Shean in Israel in 749-devestated and never recovered even though it was an impressive city).
A good example of the devestation would be the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan. Despite modern technology, national and international aid, and advanced machinery, their rebuilding process was prolonged. By 2000, they had scarcely reached 50% of their original production capacities, and homes and buildings were still unbuilt. Similarly, Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans showed how even with modern aid and technology, recovery can take many years.
To suggest that ancient Laodicea could have rebuilt faster than modern cities would certainly be overestimating the capabilities of the time. The idea that Laodicea retained untouched wealth despite economic and structural collapse, and was still seen as an opulent city without needs, is hard to reconcile with historical realities. Many preterists do see this as an issue, which is why there's a range of views on the matter. Some suggest rapid reconstruction or the possibility that the church itself wasn't as affected. I think one needs some way of dealing with the evidence. I don’t think it is correct to assume that their wealth was the modern kind of wealth that sits in Swiss Bank accounts. I think the more one studies natural disasters in the ancient world, the more one appreciates the singificance of this evidence.
@@thebiblesojourner Laodicea was a commercial and financial centre, being the equivalent to a state capital, and in a busy trade route. Indeed, they were able to mint their own coins.
It's citizens comprised many of the rich and famous of the day, and they did indeed keep great quantities of wealth stored in various ways and places outside of the city. Even back then they knew about diversification.
So this to me is why them declining imperial funding for the rebuilding is contributory evidence that they very much were still fabulously wealthy as a city, even immediately after the earthquake. And that as the OP here says, fits perfectly with them saying they have need of nothing.
Of course there were severe consequences and losses, but clearly they were still wealthy.
So it seems to me that whether or not they were completely rebuilt by the time of the writing of the Apocalypse is not really relevant?
It also seems to me that neither rapid rebuilding, nor the extent of the local church being affected, are necessary, in order to confirm Laodicea being rich.
This in my opinion would make the historical evidence here very favourable to early dating, though being charitable it could simply be neutral.
Thanks for the great discussions!
@@andrewmiles2370, Those are very good points. I also am persuaded by them.
Having classical training in history and law, It's really not because I have an axe to grind for orthodox preterism. But simply because arguments like "Laodicea could not have still been rich in AD65 after an earthquake five years before" are built on a lot of historical presumption. And when we look at the details and don't assume "construction equals poverty" and "their wealth must have only be local and not diversified" (never mind counter examples and the imperial nature of wealth at the time), the argument tends to fall apart.
One need not prove "rapid re-construction." The fact that Roman historians, long after the fact, note the wealth of the city and its ability to rebuild on its own proves the point that long term building projects and wealth in the Laodicean case (irrespective of historical counterexamples, ancient or modern) went together.
As you say, at the very least it might be considered neutral evidence. But even that raises the very problem that Dr. Goeman raises...people tend to see the historical evidence from the side of "is it possibly compatible with my view."
That is understandable, but it affects the futurist on these issues as much as the preterist. It is actually difficult to find historically contradictory and decisive evidence. But it does exist. And like this example, it often ends up, not just being compatible or neutral, but is evidence for preterism. Especially when taken in the abductive or cumulative evidential form of argument.
Total respect for people who arn't there yet. Any honest preterist will also acknowledge holes in his own view. But that is the challenge of prophesy, we all see a glass darkly.
@@jrhemmerich quite agree! I've found it a rich source of joy studying history and seeing how wonderfully accurate our scriptures are - I was an atheist till three years ago and thought it was all mythology.
I've just remembered RE. Laodicea:
Revelation 3
[18] "I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. "
This speaks to three ways Laodicea became rich and famous:
They sold gold! And commodities generally. Here, Jesus is mocking their gold.
They famously produced black wool! Jesus directly rebukes this as beneath His standards for His saints.
They were a centre of medicine and learning for the time! But Jesus points out the ineffectual nature of their remedies.
What a mighty Redeemer we have!
@@andrewmiles2370, that is so very encouraging to hear your story.
My faith also has been greatly strengthened to understand that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23-24 helps to unveil the prophesies in Daniel (we are told to understand what Daniel was told he would not, for the time was far off, but “at hand” for the Apostles).
Understanding that “cloud coming” is an OT picture of God’s judgment through historical events on the earth (Isa. 19:1) which Jesus appropriates to himself, really solidified my view that Jesus really meant that all the things spoken about the fall of the temple were to happen in that generation.
It is quite distinct from the physical descent/return of Jesus (Acts 1:11, 3:18-20, 1Thess. 4:13-18, Rev. 20:9-14, 21:4).
Amazingly, the cloud coming in judgment happened right on time.
The fall of the temple and the old order of worship in AD 70 is a historical confirmation of the new covenant order set up by Christ’s substitutionary death for us (Heb. 9:8-10; 12:26-27).
Revelation speaks of the fall of the great city, Jerusalem, which is the city where the Lord was crucified (Rev. 11:8).
The time period for the war against Israel by the Romans is 42 months of the city, when the Romans declare war about April/May of 67 and send Vespasian into Galilee and Judea until the fall of the temple in August/September of 70 (3.5 years).
The siege of Jerusalem is also described as five month (Rev. 9:3) and Josephus says that the siege of the Romans began in April/May (Ilyar) and ended in August/September (Av 10th, was the burning of the Temple). So the siege (where people were harmed by the siege engines “scorpions” whose power was in their tail, but where the city was not subject to mass slaughter was 5 months.
All of the details and many others are what convince me. Though one has to be cautious to not go over board on the details, but to accept them where they can be found. Often a lack of reliable history is the problem. Not scripture.
But I will say that this has been a later confirmatory evidences for me. I was already a Christian and had been convinced by other history and philosophy about the meaning of Jesus and the cross much prior to my views on Revelation (though I was introduced to a historical interpretation Mathew 24 in my early teens.
I’m curious, was eschatology a minor piece in your recent conversion or more significant?
I do think Revelation important, but I would still rank it as secondary to the primary issues (a capstone to scripture and the new covenant understanding). Though I do think it very helpful not to be so confused by such things as I once was.
But maybe that is maturity and the battle now is holding on to a bit of humility in the midst of my developing confidence.
Not to burden you with my questions or curiosity. Blessings.
Revelation was written 14 years before 2 Corinthians was written.
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows."
That’s a very intriguing theory, but Paul says in the next verse: “and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter” (2 Cor 12:4). So if man may not utter it it is not Revelation.
@@thebiblesojournerNot all of it couldn't be told, just some of it - like what the seven thunders spoke (10:4).
@@thebiblesojourner thank you for your reply.
This comment by the Apostle Paul is in relation to Apostle John's experience & what he documents in Revelation 10.
The similarity of these two such strange experiences, such as Rev 10:4 and 2Cor 12:4 document, seems incredible that they are not related.
Rev 10.4
4And when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down.”
@@brettlovett6011 agree. Text is clear
@@rfnecio I suppose it is possible. But it seems selective to take 2 Cor 12:3 and say it refers to Revelation, but 12:4 refers only to Revelation 10? If you have something more that I can read on this I'd love to do more research!
Pretorism, Terrorism, Schmeterism. History just keeps looping over and over - EVERYONE is 'right'.
Everyone is right in their own eyes... sounds familiar ....
@@thebiblesojourner - agreed. Aren't you?
@@ChrisMusante I always say I agree with everything I've said ... so far 😅
@@thebiblesojourner 🤣🤣 Amen!
2 Timothy is dated at A.D. 63. Let not many of you become teachers.
Well that date is only possible if you try to fit everything into the book of Acts. That’s a pretty sketchy prospect in my mind (and most books tend to agree). But it’s a good theory to try with the evidence.
Redating the New Testament by John A. T. Robinson (Author)
On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr. Robinson defends that the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 70....contradicting, of course, the consensus of generations of Bible scholars.
I’d be curious to read his dating on 1 Timothy. He puts that much earlier too. Curious as to his arguments on that. Gotta find a copy again.
@@thebiblesojourner J.A.T. ROBINSON’S REDATED NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY
LISTED BY DATE
-0047-48: James
0050,E: 1 Thessalonians
0050-51: 2 Thessalonians
0055,E: 1 Corinthians
0055,L: 1 Timothy
0056,E: 2 Corinthians
0056,L: Galatians
0057,E: Romans
0057,E: Titus
0058,E: Philippians
0058,M: Philemon
0058,M: Colossians
0058.M: Ephesians
0058,L: 2 Timothy
0040-60: The Didache
0045-60: Mark
0040-60+: Matthew
-0057-60+: Luke
0061-62: Jude
0061-62: 2 Peter
0057-62+: Acts
0060-65: 1 John
0060-65: 2 John
0060-65: 3 John
0065,E: 1 Peter
-0040-65+: John
0067: Hebrews
0068,L(-70): Revelation
0070,E: 1 Clement
0075: Barnabas
-0085: The Shepherd of Hermas
LISTED BY TITLE
Acts: 57-62+
Barnabas: 75
1 Clement: Early 70
Colossians: Summer 58
Corinthians 1: Early 55
Corinthians 2: Early 56
The Didache: 40-60
Ephesians: Late Summer 58
Galatians: Later 56
Hebrews: 67
James: -47-48
John c. -40-65+
1 John: 60-65
2 John: 60-65
3 John: 60-65
Jude: 61-2
Luke: -57-60+
Mark: 45-60
Matthew: 40-60+
1 Peter: Spring 65
2 Peter: 61-2
Philemon: Summer 58
Philippians: Spring 58
Revelation: Late 68 (-70)
Romans: Early 57
The Shepherd of Hermas: -85
Thessalonians 1: Early 50
Thessalonians 2: 50-51
Timothy 1: Autumn 55
Timothy 2: Autumn 58
Titus: Late Spring 57
@@thebiblesojourner Timothy 1: Autumn 55
Doesnt John just self date Revelation to AD 95/96? "He who testifies says "I am coming quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. - Rev. 22:20".
"He who testifies" is John and we know John is speaking to Jesus because the words "Come, Lord Jesus". So when John says *to Jesus* the words "I am coming quickly" it means John is writing on his deathbed and is about to go see his friend and Savior for the first time in over 60 years. By that verse, alone, John is literally telling us the approximate year in which he is writing Revelation.
Petsonally, I suspect the words "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" are John's last words before he died.
It is certainly possible, though it is also possible to interpret that verse different ways. I would say it is definitely an intriguing argument, though not conclusive (at least to me--maybe I'm wrong!).
@thebiblesojourner it's conclusive. I've spent a lot of time on that verse. Compare the wording in Rev 1:1-2 and Rev 20:15-19. John 5:31 is also dire tly relevant.
I'm on my phone but I can explain in more detail when I have access to my PC TONIGHT
Look forward to it
@@asherjacobson597, it just strikes me as odd that you turn action that is focused on Jesus into John dying and going to Jesus.
The phrase is repeated at the end of the book and the events of the book are “at hand.”
I don’t see any context that points to John’s death as being the coming of Jesus. On the contrary, it seems to have meaning for a wide number of the readers of the book.
But, I’d be curious to see what you have to say.
Fascinating.
Read a book.
Well that’s not very nice 😊
Preterism is no more stubborn in the flesh than Covenant Theology in denying the reality of Bible texts and of prophecies. I am frightened how that you can read all of Rom. Eleven and Jewish Israel is the remnant and broken off branches and hardened and blinded and Paul's own race, and suddenly in verse 25, by influx of Gentiles all Israel will be saved! Spooky!
Well, it is attractive because of the false certainty it creates. But I agree... it is concerning that one can adopt a loose hermeneutic to fit certain events into the prophecies.
"By influx of Gentiles all Israel will be saved." ??? Only a remnant of Israel will be saved. That remnant will be "all of Israel" when all is said and done. What has that got to do with the Gentiles?
@@bugsocsollie1694 the influx of Gentiles into the Church has nothing to do with all Israel being saved. That is my point. All Israel will be Jews. All Israel will be Israel..
@@bugsocsollie1694 But faithfulness to Romans 11:25 demands that we recognize that the mystery reveals the relative time of the ending of the remnant only basis of the salvation of Israel. The verse 26 all Israel shows that the remnant has swallowed the whole. No longer will only a remnant be saved into the Church. But God has returned to His program with the Jews, no longer only a remnant coming into the Church.
@@bugsocsollie1694 the fullness of the Gentiles coming into the Church is the time marker for the end of the Church. The Church is one new man composed of Gentiles and Jews together UNDISTINGUISHED. This is God's program and God's rules, not ours. But when GOD changes how He works, this marks a dispensational change, by definition.