Dating of "The Apacalypse of Jesus Christ"

The city of Laodicea was completely destroyed by earthquake in 60 AD, it would take some 25 years to rebuild.

"The place often suffered from earthquakes, especially from the great shock in the reign of Nero (60 AD), in which it was completely destroyed."

Laodicea on the Lycus.

The city as well as a church building for the church at Laodicea were rebuilt in a mere 25 years. If the Book of Revelation (The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ) was written in the 60s AD, as some claim, there would have been no city nor church of Laodicea to write to. Not for another 20 years would this be a possibility.


Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD) also states John received his "apocalyptic vision" was in fact "sometime near the end of Domitian's reign". "Against Heresies", Volume V, Chapter 30. This is strong evidence because Irenaeus was Polycarps's direct disciple, who in turn was the apostle John's direct disciple. That's only one person removed from the original source, John himself.

Apacalypse?

Originally posted by SalientSkivvy
Apacalypse?

That's the Greek, it means "Revelation". "The Revealing". The book of Revelation starts out with this word: "apokalypsis"(Strong's # G602). It means:

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b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all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

Blue Letter Bible with Greek Lexicon.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Here is the next sentence after the sentence you quoted from Wikipedia.

But the inhabitants declined imperial assistance to rebuild the city and restored it from their own means.

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.

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

reply to post by the2ofusr1

...If the 60s date was correct then Jesus should have sent a letter to City of Jerusalem as well ..

♦What would be the thought process behind that conclusion? How about Antioch which was home of the original "Christians"?
♦Obviously the letters were sent to the cities vulnerable to a very dangerous apostasy which was centered in that area that included those named cities. There is a book I am considering including in my buy list for March called, Who Rides the Beast? (subtitle is "Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse") which gets into this very subject, which is apparently there was a female prophet who John calls Jezebel, who was leading some sort of heretical diversion from the type of religion John was preaching.
♦The importance of the date of John's vision which was the basis of the Book of Revelation, is the 666 mystery, which he commands people (who know things like letters and numbers) to figure out, which is of a man. It works out, according to a lot of people's calculation, to be of Nero. If Nero was already dead at the time, then that explanation would not be so valid an option.
from the book by Paul B. Duff, linked to above,
As a note to anyone who may be interested in this book: there are a few of the introduction pages available at the Amazon page I linked to, plus if you go to the Google Books page for it, there are some pages from the first chapter available for preview, to get an idea what the author is talking about.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well it did all start in Jerusalem ,and one of the early churches was Ephesus ...peace

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Here is the next sentence after the sentence you quoted from Wikipedia.

But the inhabitants declined imperial assistance to rebuild the city and restored it from their own means.

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.

Sure it does. Because when Christ addresses the "church at Laodicea" He says to them:

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:"

This obviously wasn't written before the earthquake in 60 AD, there was no "church" at Laodicea at that time. The church was built for the Christians when the city was rebuilt during the 25 years after 60 AD's earthquake.

So based on the wording, Christ's letter could not have been addressed to the Church at Laodicea before 80-85ish AD. The city was "completely destroyed", there was no church until the city was rebuilt. And in Christ's letter he tells them they are wrong for thinking they were "rich and in need of nothing". (Referring to that help from outside to recover from the earthquake), when actually they were poor and in great need of help, spiritually.

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

Well, I agree with everything you said except the last part. The churches were chosen in that specific order because if it were written in any other way it wouldn't detail the history of the Church.

Also adding to the "late-date" evidence. Polycarp, (John's disciple), writes that the church at Smyrna was started after Paul's martyrdom which was around 64 - 67 AD. If that church began after Paul's martyrdom then how could they have been prominent enough for Jesus to address a letter to in Revelation which the skeptics say was written likewise between 66 - 69 AD?

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

 

I havent read all sources to determine dates ....The history factor in the names does play well to the church history for sure ...peace

It'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. We're in the "Laodicean" age for the church today. Thyatira is the medieval (Catholic) church, Sardis is the denominational churches, Philadeplphia is the missionary church.

You cannot accept an early date for The Apocalypse and have letters contained within it from Jesus addressed to two churches which were not there in 60-66 AD.

The church in Laodicea wasn't built until the city was rebuilt following the earthquake of 60 AD. The city was completely rebuilt in a mere 20 - 25 years. The earliest date based upon that evidence for Revelation is 80-85ish AD. The church at Smyrna wasn't started until after Paul was martyred in 64-67 AD.

And the best evidence yet, is Irenaeus' quote saying John received the "apocalyptic vision", which he said was very recent ago, at the "end of Domitian's reign". Which ended in 96 AD. Nero murdered Peter and Paul in Rome, if he had the chance to get John too, then why did he banish him to Patmos? No, it appears based on Roman history, that Domitian loved to banish people. Nero loved making them commit suicide in front of him.

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

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

Of course, I certainly didn't mean to imply it had no literal application to us all, "whoever has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (Plural) Good day, thanks for weighing in. I have an ear so I'm held accountable to "hear" what the Spirit says in those letters.

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.

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.

As opposed to running to the opinions of the nearest extreme-liberal textual critic so we can just get rid of the text altogether?

♦ 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 Greek word John used for "soon to come to pass" is the same Greek word we get the term "Tachometer" from. 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. That's why we call the machine that measures how fast something is accelerating a "Tachometer", from the meaning of the Greek word.

♦ 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.

No, they were real events John says he "saw" with his eyes. And Jesus rendered the visions into signs "signified" and told John to write everything he saw. This was after at minimum 85 AD based on what Irenaeus said and the rebuilding of the City of Laodicea following the earthquake of 60 AD.

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".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . 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.

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.
That could make you basically a history denier, meaning the million Jews killed with the fall of Jerusalem and hoping people just ignore that and not even bring it up.
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.
Your argument from Irenaeus falls apart when you look at what he wrote, in context, without all the little prompts added to misdirect the reader, put in by the same type of agenda driven motives as your own. (which is . . what, to have an end of the world right now, in 2012, so people can get all freaked out about it?)

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".

Because John isn't talking about rulers of Rome, but nations that rule the world. "The one who now is" is the Roman Empire. 5 world empires had fallen.

reply to post by jmdewey60

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.

Not "books" (plural)^^, but "book" (singular). This is about the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

1. Paul was murdered 64-67 AD: (Obviously I don't think his epistles were written after the destruction and he forgot to mention it. Absurd.)

2. James was murdered around 50-52ish AD: (Obviously I don't think his epistle was written after the destruction and he forgot to mention it. Absurd.)

3. Peter was murdered around the time Paul was, both by Nero. (Obviously I don't think his epistles were written after the destruction and he forgot to mention it. Absurd.)



Again, Nero had Paul beheaded and Peter crucified. If he had the opportunity to also murder John why didn't he? Why would he have banished him to Patmos instead?

He could of had the first ever Roman version of a "hat trick", what happened?