Book of Revelation Written by John around 96AD

[for_his_glory]

I am not. But you stated as though it were fact something that is not at all fact. John was not exiled at 90 to Patmos. He was in his early 60s or late 50s and was still a vital man. It is the futurists who insist it was written after the fall of Jerusalem for their eschatological purposes. Because it is in wikipedia or any book does not make it so. They could write that Jesus was a myth and that would not make it so. John was feeble in his 90s and could not even walk.

Nero exiled John to Patmos after boiling him in oil as well as had Peter and Paul killed around the same time. That is what some records of the time say. There is only one person who wrote it was Domitius and futurists have interpreted that as later for theological reasons. That John traveled to Ephesus as well as other places in decades before does not matter. He was exiled to Patmos under Nero. The revelation he received was sent to the churches because they were about to experience the worst persecution ever by any people as the enemy was allowed to defeat them for 3.5 years whereby many of them would be killed. The Christians came out of Jerusalem remembering the prophetic words of Jesus and avoided destruction.

If you want to talk historical events, then please do not try to silence those who disagree with your view by insisting no particular theology is allowed. We are talking what happened in history and the evidence for John writing Revelation 60-68 AD is stronger than Encyclopedia Britannica. I know the majority have been taught it was later but that is due to good publicity and not good scholarship. The man was not in his 90s ministering still in churches in the world.

What are your sources for what you claim to be truth so I can go read them.

 

[for_his_glory]

No, Luke was neither a prophet nor an apostle. He was a doctor who accompanied Paul. Solomon was neither a prophet nor an apostle either.

I agree with this, but Mungo was saying there might have been another John that wrote the book of Revelation. There was only one John being the beloved disciple of Christ.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What are your sources for what you claim to be truth so I can go read them.

I opened a thread with quotes from early century authors. Do you have any quotes from early century authors? (What futurists think now is less impressive.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I agree with this, but Mungo was saying there might have been another John that wrote the book of Revelation. There was only one John being the beloved disciple of Christ.

Yes, I agree. Another John is an idea with no basis or evidence.

 

[for_his_glory]

You used Google to decide when John was exiled???

Many of us use use Google or whatever search engine they want to use, but it is also written in the history of my Bible where I first found this information.

 

[for_his_glory]

I opened a thread with quotes from early century authors. Do you have any quotes from early century authors? (What futurists think now is less impressive.)

None of this has anything to do with the topic of the OP. I can also say I am not impressed with what Preterist belief, but only what is written in the Bible and Biblical history. I feel no need to quote early century authors as even they can not agree with each other.

 

[Mungo]

Who disputes this? That Jesus lived at all is disputed by some but none of them are qualified to know.

My New Jerome Biblical Commentary, a scholarly tome of some 1426 pages, spends several column inches on this. It concludes "It seems best to conclude that the author was an early Christian prophet by the name of John, otherwise unknown."

 

[Mungo]

I agree with this, but Mungo was saying there might have been another John that wrote the book of Revelation. There was only one John being the beloved disciple of Christ.

Not quite.
I asked: "How do we know the Book of Revelation was written by the apostle John and not some other John?"

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Many of us use use Google or whatever search engine they want to use, but it is also written in the history of my Bible where I first found this information.

Except the person writing it did not quote sources closer to the event. The Scofield bible introduced the Rapture theory into the American church and it was written in the Bibles names after him. It is not in the inspired part of the Bible.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

My New Jerome Biblical Commentary, a scholarly tome of some 1426 pages, spends several column inches on this. It concludes "It seems best to conclude that the author was an early Christian prophet by the name of John, otherwise unknown."

That makes no sense whatsoever. The Apostle John was known to have been exiled to Patmos. Why would it be someone we have no idea of?

 

[for_his_glory]

My New Jerome Biblical Commentary, a scholarly tome of some 1426 pages, spends several column inches on this. It concludes "It seems best to conclude that the author was an early Christian prophet by the name of John, otherwise unknown."

It's only ones own assumption and conclusion, but has no proof.

 

[for_his_glory]

Not quite.
I asked: "How do we know the Book of Revelation was written by the apostle John and not some other John?"

New Jerome Biblical Commentary was written by a man, but yet no proof.

 

[for_his_glory]

Except the person writing it did not quote sources closer to the event. The Scofield bible introduced the Rapture theory into the American church and it was written in the Bibles names after him. It is not in the inspired part of the Bible.

Again that is only your opinion as I am wanting your sources you use that you have also seemed to google to get these quotes from the early church theologians. Rapture is not in the Bible and that is another topic.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

None of this has anything to do with the topic of the OP. I can also say I am not impressed with what Preterist belief, but only what is written in the Bible and Biblical history. I feel no need to quote early century authors as even they can not agree with each other.

What? The topic is when Revelation was written and you proposed in the title a date that is not supported by the historical record. Why is challenging that not on the OP??

Your biblical history is written by futurists and was introduced late in church history. The early centuries knew that the account in Revelation was the fall of Jerusalem. But if you do not want to read the church fathers then there is nothing to discuss. If you only want to read the Bible, you need to drop assuming you know the date of when the book was written as that is NOT in the Bible, well, not your Bible. It is in one older version and it was in 60 something AD under Nero. That is in a Bible, just not yours.

Maybe others are interested in what the church fathers had to say about when events occurred. I mean, the Bible does not talk about the death of Peter or Paul or John or any of the disciples except Judas. And yet we know from the writings of the church fathers approximately when and how they occurred. That, is not in the Bible. So far no one challenges that the disciples died as the church fathers wrote. But, those accounts do not affect the popular eschatology so they are OK.

It would really be better if you sticked to the presentation of history and not bring out theology but if you do, you are sitting in a glass house, my dear. I can present a list of historical accounts of my position sans any theology and there are futurists who believe Revelation was written before the Fall of Jerusalem. It really is not limited to my eschatology.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

New Jerome Biblical Commentary was written by a man, but yet no proof.

So was the Scofield commentary and every other commentary. There is not a single inspired verse of the Bible that supports Revelation being written when John was a feeble old man. All the bits are written by men without proof.

 

[Mungo]

New Jerome Biblical Commentary was written by a man, but yet no proof.

All the apostles and early fathers were men. So what?

 

[Mungo]

Many of us use use Google or whatever search engine they want to use, but it is also written in the history of my Bible where I first found this information.

My Bible says the identification with John the apostle was disputed by many early fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom. It suggest that it could have been written by a disciple of John the apostle, also called John.

It also suggest the date is near the end of the reign of Domitian

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Again that is only your opinion as I am wanting your sources you use that you have also seemed to google to get these quotes from the early church theologians. Rapture is not in the Bible and that is another topic.

I gave them to you but you are not interested in reading the writings of the church fathers who were much closer to the events. Ah, I googled scholarly quotes from the church fathers. You looked into Encyclopedia Britannica and quoted no scholars at all. All that you wrote seems to be only your opinion, by the way.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

I feel no need to quote early century authors as even they can not agree with each other.

100%

 

[Mungo]

So was the Scofield commentary and every other commentary. There is not a single inspired verse of the Bible that supports Revelation being written when John was a feeble old man. All the bits are written by men without proof.

There is not a single inspired verse of the Bible that supports Revelation being written by the apostle John.