It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The place often suffered from earthquakes, especially from the great shock in the reign of Nero (60 AD), in which it was completely destroyed."
Originally posted by SalientSkivvy
Apacalypse?
1) laying bare, making naked
2) a disclosure of truth, instruction
a) concerning things before unknown
b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
3) manifestation, appearance
They were in a strategic location that insured their financial prosperity so could deal with it and in no case became refugees, vacating the area. So this earthquake would not have any bearing on dating Revelation.
But the inhabitants declined imperial assistance to rebuild the city and restored it from their own means.
♦What would be the thought process behind that conclusion? How about Antioch which was home of the original "Christians"?
...If the 60s date was correct then Jesus should have sent a letter to City of Jerusalem as well ..
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Here is the next sentence after the sentence you quoted from Wikipedia.They were in a strategic location that insured their financial prosperity so could deal with it and in no case became refugees, vacating the area. So this earthquake would not have any bearing on dating Revelation.
But the inhabitants declined imperial assistance to rebuild the city and restored it from their own means.
Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
At one time I was convinced for the early date of Revelation because John didn't mention the temple in the book ...But the more I thought about it and look at other thoughts on the matter the more the later date made sense ...90/95 date works out well ...not that it matters much in one way but its good to have a better picture in ones mind ...If the 60s date was correct then Jesus should have sent a letter to City of Jerusalem as well ..peace
Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
I havent read all sources to determine dates ....The history factor in the names does play well to the church history for sure ...peace
Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
It truly is prophetically layered ..The deeper you look at it the more profound it becomes ..peace ps..it has a very literal sence to it as well ..what I mean is the more garbage I get out of my head the easier the picture of scripture shows itself
♦ This sort of interpretation is of the Futuristic approach which really has nothing to recommend it and comes from people's desire to be able to do divination from the word, as a form of magic.
t's a fascinating study to see how the specific order in which Christ addressed the churches perfectly details church history from the time of the apostles, to today.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
t's a fascinating study to see how the specific order in which Christ addressed the churches perfectly details church history from the time of the apostles, to today.
♦ This sort of interpretation is of the Futuristic approach which really has nothing to recommend it and comes from people's desire to be able to do divination from the word, as a form of magic.
♦ John spells out in his introduction that the prophecy was concerning things that were soon to came to pass, which negates the Futuristic approach since the things described would have happened already, which would be a revelation of the true religion and the false religion.
♦ The visionary signs and symbols were not of actual events but pictures of concepts being played out in vignettes that all relate to making the choice of following the path to sin (a fake religion which says it does not matter what you do in this life and it is only about being "saved", so you can safely put out of your mind any concern about a future judgment after you die), or taking the path of the true religion of holiness.
Apparently you have your own agenda at stake, which is to push the date of the writing of Revelation forward past the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, relegating it to a non-event.
. . . it means "once it begins to happen it will rapidly come to pass". It doesn't imply that soon in time from the time the author wrote the letter.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
i find an important clue in the ch17 lines about the seven kings, which identify the sixth king as the one who "is".
This implies, very clearly, that John considers himself to be writing in the time of the sixth ruler.
It is very easy to find a sequence of Roman rulers which identifies Nero as the sixth in the series (just start with Julius Caesar).
It is much more tricky to find a sensible sequence which makes Domitian the sixth ruler.
Supporters of the idea that John was in Domitian's time tend to assume that Revelation identifies Domitian as the "eighth". But John doesn't claim to be writing under the "eighth".
Having the books of the New Testament written in the 80's allows you to pretend the destruction happened, and the Apostles thought nothing of it, or not enough to write anything about it.