Revelation: An Early Preterist Date VS A Late Preterist Date

[Paul E. Michael]

With which of these two, conflicting preterist claims do you agree, concerning the dating of the book of Revelation?

James Stuart Russell (the early date):

Now the first general persecution of Christians was that which took place under Nero, A.D. 64. We infer that this was the persecution then impending, and therefore that the Apocalypse was written prior to that date.

VS
​

Kenneth L. Gentry (the late date):

My position is that Revelation was written in A.D. 65 or 66. This would be after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in November, 64...​

 

[Endtimesdeut32]

Could be either, but if John was writing from Patmos where he ad been banished by Nero, it makes sense that it was written after the persecution began. The prologue of what John is to write includes things which have been , which are and we're then to come?

Russel may have been writing in contrast against the Kate date theorists, moreso than trying to pinpoint a time or date.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Could be either, but if John was writing from Patmos where he ad been banished by Nero, it makes sense that it was written after the persecution began. The prologue of what John is to write includes things which have been , which are and we're then to come?

Russel may have been writing in contrast against the Kate date theorists, moreso than trying to pinpoint a time or date.

Anything pre 70AD sounds good. John was still young enough to be a threat to Nero.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Could be either, but if John was writing from Patmos where he ad been banished by Nero, it makes sense that it was written after the persecution began.

On the contrary, that doesn't make any sense at all. If John was writing Revelation 13 from Patmos, and Revelation 13 predicts that Nero would persecute John (as well as other first-century Christians), then John's being on Patmos could not be a result of Neronic persecution.

The prologue of what John is to write includes things which have been , which are and we're then to come?

In writing Revelation 13, John was writing predictive prophecy about things which were then to come, no?

Had John already come to Patmos by the time he wrote Revelation 13? Obviously he had; and so, at the time when John wrote Revelation 13, his already being on Patmos could not be a thing which was yet to come. Since John is predicting the Revelation 13 beast's persecutory policy, John's being on Patmos cannot have been a result of the Revelation 13 beast's persecutory policy.

Russel may have been writing in contrast against the Kate date theorists, moreso than trying to pinpoint a time or date.

Contrasted against Russell, Gentry IS a late date theorist. Some time "in A.D. 65 or 66" (Gentry) is a late date, in contrast against Russell's early date of some time in A.D. 64 or earlier. Russell and Gentry cancel each other out.

To Russell's credit, though, he (unlike Gentry) was at least trying to uphold the fact that Revelation 13 was predictive prophecy of things yet to come when John wrote it; which is exactly why he maintained that Revelation 13 had to have been written before the beginning of what he (Russell) took Revelation 13 to have been predicting. Thus, so far as I remember, Russell never tries to account for John's being on Patmos by claiming (as Gentry ridiculously claims) that Nero had banished him to that island.

Anything pre 70AD sounds good.

Not when looking analytically at pre-70AD claims, not at all. Besides, I'm sure you, yourself, don't even believe that "anything pre 70AD sounds good," since (for instance) surely you'd not be willing to say that 31 December 69 sounds like a good date to claim for John's writing of Revelation. Especially seeing as Nero--the preterists' favorite "beast" candidate, whom they suppose had had John banished to Patmos--had already died about halfway through the year A.D. 68. And, 1000 B.C. fits your "anything pre 70AD" criteria, yet you're obviously not going to go there.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

On the contrary, that doesn't make any sense at all. If John was writing Revelation 13 from Patmos, and Revelation 13 predicts that Nero would persecute John (as well as other first-century Christians), then John's being on Patmos could not be a result of Neronic persecution.

This is a really silly answer. The Jews persecuted the Christians for decades. Nero had Peter and Paul killed BEFORE 70 AD. So John was not writing something NEW that the church hadn’t known before. John didn’t write to himself bout what he was about to face from Patmos except that he would still travel and minister, something impossible when he was 90.

In writing Revelation 13, John was writing predictive prophecy about things which were then to come, no?

Had John already come to Patmos by the time he wrote Revelation 13? Obviously he had; and so, at the time when John wrote Revelation 13, his already being on Patmos could not be a thing which was yet to come. Since John is predicting the Revelation 13 beast's persecutory policy, John's being on Patmos cannot have been a result of the Revelation 13 beast's persecutory policy.

Persecution didn’t start with Nero. This is really silly, isn’t so bad.

Contrasted against Russell, Gentry IS a late date theorist. Some time "in A.D. 65 or 66" (Gentry) is a late date, in contrast against Russell's early date of some time in A.D. 64 or earlier. Russell and Gentry cancel each other out.

Are you serious? One says 65 or 66 and the other 64 and you think that cancels each other out? Seriously?

To Russell's credit, though, he (unlike Gentry) was at least trying to uphold the fact that Revelation 13 was predictive prophecy of things yet to come when John wrote it; which is exactly why he maintained that Revelation 13 had to have been written before the beginning of what he (Russell) took Revelation 13 to have been predicting. Thus, so far as I remember, Russell never tries to account for John's being on Patmos by claiming (as Gentry ridiculously claims) that Nero had banished him to that island.

That the man doesn’t consider history is a fault, not a compliment.

Not when looking analytically at pre-70AD claims, not at all. Besides, I'm sure you, yourself, don't even believe that "anything pre 70AD sounds good," since (for instance) surely you'd not be willing to say that 31 December 69 sounds like a good date to claim for John's writing of Revelation. Especially seeing as Nero--the preterists' favorite "beast" candidate, whom they suppose had had John banished to Patmos--had already died about halfway through the year A.D. 68. And, 1000 B.C. fits your "anything pre 70AD" criteria, yet you're obviously not going to go there.

Have you considered Peter, John and Paul were sentenced by Nero before he died?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Jews persecuted the Christians for decades.

That's irrelevant to what I've posted. And besides, who said they did not? Not I.

Nero had Peter and Paul killed BEFORE 70 AD.

Perhaps. The Bible doesn't say so. But, even if it's true, it is irrelevant to what I've posted.

So John was not writing something NEW that the church hadn’t known before.

John, in Revelation 13, was merely writing what Christians already knew before he wrote it?

John didn’t write to himself bout what he was about to face from Patmos

What do you mean?

except that he would still travel and minister, something impossible when he was 90.

Um, OK.

Persecution didn’t start with Nero.

We're talking about persecution by Nero, though, which obviously did start with Nero. (Persecution of Christians by Nero is what both Russell and Gentry claim Revelation 13 is about.) Persecution by Nero can't very well have started without Nero, right?

This is really silly, isn’t so bad.

Um, OK.

Are you serious? One says 65 or 66 and the other 64 and you think that cancels each other out? Seriously?

• If John wrote Revelation sometime during the years 65 and 66, then he had not written it sometime in the year 64 or earlier; and thus Russell must be wrong.
• If John had written Revelation sometime during the year 64 or earlier, then he did not write it sometime during the years 65 and 66; and thus Gentry must be wrong.

That is an irreconcilable clash of claims in the house of pre-70 A.D. preterism.

That the man doesn’t consider history is a fault, not a compliment.

What are you talking about? What do you mean by saying Russell "doesn't consider history"?

Russell's dating of Revelation 13 shows he has a higher view of Bible prophecy (than Gentry's view) since he at least admits that Revelation 13 would have had to have been written before the occurrence of events he thinks it foretold. Whereas Gentry makes Revelation 13 to have been written only after events had occurred, about which he imagines it was written. First century Christians who have already been suffering persecution by Nero have no need of a document to come along and tell them that Nero is persecuting them--especially one that supposedly cryptically refers to Nero by calling him "the beast", etc.

Have you considered Peter, John and Paul were sentenced by Nero before he died?

1. Show it to me in the Bible.
2. Don't bother trying to show it to me in the Bible, because, even if it is true, and even if it is attested by the Bible, it is nevertheless irrelevant to what I've posted in this thread.

---

Which preterist dating of Revelation do you agree with, and which one do you reject? 1) Russell's early date of sometime in 64 or before, or 2) Gentry's late date of sometime in the years 65/66? Obviously both cannot be the truth, so which one do you say is false?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That's irrelevant to what I've posted. And besides, who said they did not? Not I.

You indicated that John was warning of a persecution that had not been seen before. Persecution was a way of life for those christians and John was persecuted during the reign of Nero, persecution BEFORE Revelation was written.

Perhaps. The Bible doesn't say so. But, even if it's true, it is irrelevant to what I've posted.

Ah, this is likely to end soon because you do not realize that the Bible does not contain all of human history being finished BEFORE 70AD. It is pretty obvious that Paul was not writing his epistles after he was beheaded. So of course he did not write about his own death after the fact. Neither did Peter. If this is not clear to you that this will not be a beneficial conversation.

John, in Revelation 13, was merely writing what Christians already knew before he wrote it?

He was writing the WHOLE BOOK of Revelation (why are you fixed on that chapter) to warn them that a persecution and Jacobs trouble was coming that no people had ever experienced nor would again. The destruction of the temple and the end of the Mosaic was big in Christian history as Judaism as Moses had taught it was to be ended forever. And they would suffer along the way but God was about to judge Israel punishing them for crucifying the Son of God. This was big.

We're talking about persecution by Nero, though, which obviously did start with Nero. (Persecution of Christians by Nero is what both Russell and Gentry claim Revelation 13 is about.) Persecution by Nero can't very well have started without Nero, right?

I have not read Russell or Gentry so let us stick to the Bible. Nero had already started persecuting the church before John was sentenced to Patmos since Nero sentenced him there. If those two gents think and John was predicting Nero's persecution which they think had not started, they have a problem as John, being already on Patmos, was already persecuted at the time of writing the text. It had started after the fire in Rome. This is pretty common knowledge. Nero blamed the christians for the fire.

Um, OK.

• If John wrote Revelation sometime during the years 65 and 66, then he had not written it sometime in the year 64 or earlier; and thus Russell must be wrong.

Correct, Russell is wrong. I mean, when does his think John was sentenced and why? I mean, being boiled in oil and sentenced into exile IS persecution.

• If John had written Revelation sometime during the year 64 or earlier, then he did not write it sometime during the years 65 and 66; and thus Gentry must be wrong.

Seems so, Gentry is likely wrong.

That is an irreconcilable clash of claims in the house of pre-70 A.D. preterism.

I do not see any clash. Sorry. The fire in Rome was what, 64 AD? Nero died in 68AD or so. Logically, the persecution starts in 64 AD with the sentencing of John, murder of Peter and Paul and countless others leading up to the death of Nero, when the persecution of the Christians stopped but the judgement of God falling on Jerusalem (emptied of its christians as they say Matt 24 being fulfilled and all left town) in 70AD. Where it the problem? The whole terrible time under Nero last what, 3.5 years? Sounds about right. John wrote "soon" and soon it was.

What are you talking about? What do you mean by saying Russell "doesn't consider history"?

Russell's dating of Revelation 13 shows he has a higher view of Bible prophecy (than Gentry's view) since he at least admits that Revelation 13 would have had to have been written before the occurrence of events he thinks it foretold. Whereas Gentry makes Revelation 13 to have been written only after events had occurred, about which he imagines it was written. First century Christians who have already been suffering persecution by Nero have no need of a document to come along and tell them that Nero is persecuting them--especially one that supposedly cryptically refers to Nero by calling him "the beast", etc.

Again, I will leave of Henry and Russell as they are not a part of the conversation and cannot defend themselves. Nero only started persecuting the Christians after the fire in Rome, 64 AD. Then it started heavily. Before that time the Romans did not persecute the Christians, the Jews did. So John's exile, death of Peter and Paul and Nero murdering hundreds if not thousands of Believers for his pleasure was short lived, a few years until Nero died. I guess I do not see a problem. Nero starts his persecution. John is exiled, writes down the Revelation to be delivered to the churches as they were about to really suffer and soon. Nero is forced to commit suicide. Persecution stops. Jerusalem is leveled to the ground. I do not see what problem is there in the timing.

1. Show it to me in the Bible.

I am supposed to show you where Peter and Paul wrote about them being beheaded, crucified after they were dead? When do you think those men could have possibly written about Nero sentencing them to death? This is called history and there is lots of it outside the writings of those two men.

1. Don't bother trying to show it to me in the Bible, because, even if it is true, and even if it is attested by the Bible, it is nevertheless irrelevant to what I've posted in this thread.

Ah, never mind showing you evidence of Paul and Peter writing about how Nero sentenced them to death after they had died and even if I did, you don't want to see it. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind."

---

Which preterist dating of Revelation do you agree with, and which one do you reject? 1) Russell's early date of sometime in 64 or before, or 2) Gentry's late date of sometime in the years 65/66? Obviously both cannot be the truth, so which one do you say is false?

Well, those are just two guys for one, and for two, it this really makes a difference to you, you are picking at the fleas and swallowing the camel. I am tempted to poke fun and ask if we need to specify which month in those years or it all bunk to you.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You indicated that John was warning of a persecution that had not been seen before.

Again, remember that we are talking about the persecution of Christians by Nero. Did John write Revelation 13 before Nero persecuted Christians? Yes or No?

Persecution was a way of life for those christians

That is irrelevant to what I have written in this thread.

and John was persecuted during the reign of Nero, persecution BEFORE Revelation was written.

BEFORE Revelation 13 was written, were Christians persecuted BY NERO? Yes or No?

---

John, in Revelation 13, was merely writing what Christians already knew before he wrote it?

Yes or No? In Revelation 13, was John merely writing what Christians already knew before he wrote it? Yes or No?

He was writing the WHOLE BOOK of Revelation

That is irrelevant, and no one said John was not writing the WHOLE BOOK of Revelation. But you agree that John was writing Revelation 13, no?

(why are you fixed on that chapter)

Is Revelation 13 about persecution of Christians by Nero? Yes or No?

to warn them that a persecution and Jacobs trouble was coming that no people had ever experienced nor would again.

Did John write Revelation 13 to warn them that a persecution BY NERO was coming? Yes or No?

The destruction of the temple and the end of the Mosaic was big in Christian history as Judaism as Moses had taught it was to be ended forever. And they would suffer along the way but God was about to judge Israel punishing them for crucifying the Son of God. This was big.

All of that is irrelevant to what I've written in this thread.

I have not read Russell or Gentry

If you read my OP, you will see that this thread is about what Russell says about the dating of the writing of Revelation, and about what Gentry says about the dating of the writing of Revelation. If you're not here to try to deal with what this thread is about, then why are you posting in this thread?

let us stick to the Bible. Nero had already started persecuting the church before John was sentenced to Patmos since Nero sentenced him there.

Claiming, as you do, that Nero sentenced John to banishment on Patmos is not sticking to the Bible. But that's beside the point.

Nero blamed the christians for the fire.

That is also irrelevant to what I have written in this thread, and is another example of not sticking to the Bible.

---

Nero had already started persecuting the church before John was sentenced to Patmos since Nero sentenced him there. If those two gents think and John was predicting Nero's persecution which they think had not started, they have a problem as John, being already on Patmos, was already persecuted at the time of writing the text.

This is the first thing you've said that is relevant to my thread. Unfortunately, in writing it, you show that you have not carefully read what I have written in this thread. Had you read my OP, you'd have seen from my quotation that one of those two authors (Gentry) thinks that Nero had started persecuting Christians before John wrote Revelation 13, and that the other of those two authors (Russell) thinks that John wrote Revelation 13 before Nero started persecuting Christians. You'd have seen that one of them (Russell) regards Revelation 13 as predicting that Nero would persecute Christians, and that the other (Gentry) regards Revelation 13 as not predicting that Nero would persecute Christians.

• In Revelation 13, is John writing about Nero persecuting Christians? Yes or No?
• In Revelation 13, is John describing events which will take place after he has written it? (In other words, in Revelation 13, is he predicting the events about which he is writing?) Yes or No?

I do not see any clash. Sorry.

But then, you've not carefully read nor reflected upon what I've written in this thread, so that's no surprise. If you can't see that a time that falls in the year 64 or earlier (Russell's dating) is not/cannot be a time that falls within the years 65 and 66 (Gentry's dating), I'm afraid that I can't help you.

the persecution starts in 64 AD

---

Again, I will leave of Henry and Russell as they are not a part of the conversation and cannot defend themselves.

Who is Henry?? If you're not here to try to deal with the conflict between the preterist author Russell and the preterist author Gentry, then you have nothing of relevance to post in this thread. And, by your admission that you are not trying to deal with what I, in my OP, have quoted those two preterist authors as saying, you are admitting that your posts in this thread are irrelevant, and spam.

---

Russell is wrong.

So you agree that John did not write Revelation 13 in A.D. 64 or earlier? Because that's when Russell thinks it was written.

Gentry is likely wrong.

So you agree that John did not write Revelation 13 in the years A.D. 65/66? Because that's when Gentry thinks it was written.

Remember, also, that you've already said:

Anything pre 70AD sounds good.

So, according to you, Russell's dating of Revelation 13 "sounds good", even though you say he's "wrong" therein. And likewise, according to you, Gentry's dating of Revelation 13 "sounds good", even though you say he's "likely wrong" therein.

---

I mean, when does his think John was sentenced and why?

I do not know that Russell ever even got around to questioning--much less, answering--how John ended up on the island of Patmos. You can read his book, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry Into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord, online. I can't even find Russell writing the name, 'Patmos', therein. And if he shares your view--that banishment by Nero is why John was on Patmos--he never says so, so far as I've been able to see. And Russell's stipulation that Revelation 13 had to have been written before Nero persecuted Christians would, if he wishes to be self-consistent, debar him from agreeing with your extra-Biblical claim that Nero banished John to Patmos. And, despite the fact that you (and other preterists) like to think of yourself as "sticking to the Bible", you're obviously not getting it from the Bible that Nero banished John to Patmos.

---

I do not see what problem is there in the timing.

Um, you just got done telling me that Russell is "wrong" in his timing of the writing of Revelation 13, and that Gentry is "likely wrong" in his timing of the writing of Revelation 13, so obviously you do think their timings of the writing of Revelation 13 are problematic.

---

I am supposed to show you where Peter and Paul wrote about them being beheaded, crucified after they were dead?

As you admit, the Bible does not say that either Peter or Paul was crucified or beheaded. So, when you try to sell your claim that those men died in those ways, you are necessarily left with appealing to extra-Biblical writings. Which shows that you're not really all about "sticking to the Bible", as you fancy yourself to be.

When do you think those men could have possibly written about Nero sentencing them to death?

At any time in their careers as Apostles, had God wanted them to do so.

This is called history and there is lots of it outside the writings of those two men.

Perhaps it is called "history". So what? That's a different question from the question of whether it is true.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I am supposed to show you where Peter and Paul wrote about them being beheaded, crucified after they were dead?

As you admit, the Bible does not say that either Peter or Paul was crucified or beheaded. So, when you try to sell your claim that those men died in those ways, you are necessarily left with appealing to extra-Biblical writings. Which shows that you're not really all about "sticking to the Bible", as you fancy yourself to be.

When do you think those men could have possibly written about Nero sentencing them to death?

At any time in their careers as Apostles, had God wanted them to do so.

This is called history and there is lots of it outside the writings of those two men.

Perhaps it is called "history". So what? That's a different question from the question of whether it is true.

---

I am tempted to poke fun and ask if we need to specify which month in those years or it all bunk to you.

When two prominent preterist scholars (which, oddly, you were apparently entirely ignorant of until seeing my thread) give mutually contradictory, pre-70 A.D. datings for the writing of Revelation 13, if you're expecting to sell preterism to me, you certainly are going to have to do better than being even less specific than Gentry and Russell. Saying "anything pre 70AD sounds good" shows that you've put even less critical, even less inquisitive thinking into the question of the dating of Revelation 13 than those men have put into it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

As you admit, the Bible does not say that either Peter or Paul was crucified or beheaded. So, when you try to sell your claim that those men died in those ways, you are necessarily left with appealing to extra-Biblical writings. Which shows that you're not really all about "sticking to the Bible", as you fancy yourself to be.

What? You have the standard that you expect Peter and Paul to have written about their deaths after their deaths and that would have become canon? Really? Unless those men wrote how they died after they had died, you do not believe any historical account of how they died? Well, I have to admit that in the whole of my lifetime, I never met anyone who discredited anything not written in the Bible including the death of the authors of some of it works. That is a new one. And again, I know that Jesus is certainly NOT giving you personal revelation because one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit is to teach and train his followers in righteousness. Your ad hominem attacks show that He is not speaking to you.

At any time in their careers as Apostles, had God wanted them to do so.

Perhaps it is called "history". So what? That's a different question from the question of whether it is true.

Again, you believe those men but do not believe the historical record of how Peter and Paul died

---

When two prominent preterist scholars (which, oddly, you were apparently entirely ignorant of until seeing my thread) give mutually contradictory, pre-70 A.D. datings for the writing of Revelation 13, if you're expecting to sell preterism to me, you certainly are going to have to do better than being even less specific than Gentry and Russell. Saying "anything pre 70AD sounds good" shows that you've put even less critical, even less inquisitive thinking into the question of the dating of Revelation 13 than those men have put into it.

I am not selling anything at all. I only see how the descriptions in Matthew 24 and Revelation and Daniel match history. But of course, one would have to be schooled in that history and no, those details are not in the Bible so for you, that is out. The Bible predicts the rise of the Alexander the Great but does not discuss his life and accomplishments, the fulfillment of those prophesies. I guess they are not fulfilled for you because they are not in the Bible. But I guess none will ever be because the biblical canon is now closed. Not in the Bible, for you, it did not happen.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Again, remember that we are talking about the persecution of Christians by Nero. Did John write Revelation 13 before Nero persecuted Christians? Yes or No?

That is irrelevant to what I have written in this thread.

BEFORE Revelation 13 was written, were Christians persecuted BY NERO? Yes or No?

Please give me the month and year Revelation 13 was written. Without that information, I cannot tell you if it was before the month and year Nero started persecuting Christians or not.

---

Yes or No? In Revelation 13, was John merely writing what Christians already knew before he wrote it? Yes or No?

One needs a date for the writing of Revelation 13 and month is also useful.

That is irrelevant, and no one said John was not writing the WHOLE BOOK of Revelation. But you agree that John was writing Revelation 13, no?

Yes, John wrote Revelation 13 just after completing Revelation 12 and before Revelation 14.

If you read my OP, you will see that this thread is about what Russell says about the dating of the writing of Revelation, and about what Gentry says about the dating of the writing of Revelation. If you're not here to try to deal with what this thread is about, then why are you posting in this thread?

You do NOT say in the title that you want to discuss what those men said and that is it. The title indicates you want to discuss the date of the writing of Revelation. If your purpose is to discuss what those men said ALONE, please say so in the title next time. I know more than many here about the most likely dating of that piece.

Claiming, as you do, that Nero sentenced John to banishment on Patmos is not sticking to the Bible. But that's beside the point.

It is actually in some Bibles.

That is also irrelevant to what I have written in this thread, and is another example of not sticking to the Bible.

Is all you know contained in the Bible and nothing you have heard or learned otherwise all bunk to you?

---

This is the first thing you've said that is relevant to my thread. Unfortunately, in writing it, you show that you have not carefully read what I have written in this thread. Had you read my OP, you'd have seen from my quotation that one of those two authors (Gentry) thinks that Nero had started persecuting Christians before John wrote Revelation 13, and that the other of those two authors (Russell) thinks that John wrote Revelation 13 before Nero started persecuting Christians. You'd have seen that one of them (Russell) regards Revelation 13 as predicting that Nero would persecute Christians, and that the other (Gentry) regards Revelation 13 as not predicting that Nero would persecute Christians.

As I said, if you wanted to discuss what two men said about Revelation 13 (and no other chapter in the book) instead of what your title actually says, you needed to specify that. Something like, "Gentry and Russel disagree about the dating of Revelation 13, what do you think?" You won't get many participating but it would be more honest of you since you expect that to be the only thing discussed. (None of what they wrote is in the Bible, by the way, since the Bible was closed a while ago.

• In Revelation 13, is John writing about Nero persecuting Christians? Yes or No?
• In Revelation 13, is John describing events which will take place after he has written it? (In other words, in Revelation 13, is he predicting the events about which he is writing?) Yes or No?

I repeat, please give me the month and day Revelation 13 (just that chapter please) was written. Please use the Bible alone to tell us this since this is your standard.

But then, you've not carefully read nor reflected upon what I've written in this thread, so that's no surprise. If you can't see that a time that falls in the year 64 or earlier (Russell's dating) is not/cannot be a time that falls within the years 65 and 66 (Gentry's dating), I'm afraid that I can't help you.

Uh, this is so silly it begs a response. Yes, if it was written in 64 AD then it cannot fall within 65-66 AD. This is true and I handsomely admit it.

---

Who is Henry?? If you're not here to try to deal with the conflict between the preterist author Russell and the preterist author Gentry, then you have nothing of relevance to post in this thread. And, by your admission that you are not trying to deal with what I, in my OP, have quoted those two preterist authors as saying, you are admitting that your posts in this thread are irrelevant, and spam.

Please next time indicate in the TITLE that you want to discuss what Gentry and Russell said and nothing else.

---

So you agree that John did not write Revelation 13 in A.D. 64 or earlier? Because that's when Russell thinks it was written.

So you agree that John did not write Revelation 13 in the years A.D. 65/66? Because that's when Gentry thinks it was written.

Remember, also, that you've already said:

So, according to you, Russell's dating of Revelation 13 "sounds good", even though you say he's "wrong" therein. And likewise, according to you, Gentry's dating of Revelation 13 "sounds good", even though you say he's "likely wrong" therein.

---

I do not know that Russell ever even got around to questioning--much less, answering--how John ended up on the island of Patmos. You can read his book, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry Into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord, online. I can't even find Russell writing the name, 'Patmos', therein. And if he shares your view--that banishment by Nero is why John was on Patmos--he never says so, so far as I've been able to see. And Russell's stipulation that Revelation 13 had to have been written before Nero persecuted Christians would, if he wishes to be self-consistent, debar him from agreeing with your extra-Biblical claim that Nero banished John to Patmos. And, despite the fact that you (and other preterists) like to think of yourself as "sticking to the Bible", you're obviously not getting it from the Bible that Nero banished John to Patmos.

If the author did not wonder how John ended up on Patmos or that he even knew he was on Patmos, it begs the question as to what did he know. Now how John ended up banished BEFORE persecution began at all, this also begs the question as to how anyone who ignores real facts can come up with a coherent understanding.

Now the last sentence needs to be addressed. If anyone reading the Old Testament wanted to know when predictions came true, they are going to never learn this as the events predicted coming true are rarely actually in the Bible. In the NT, Jesus predicted the temple being destroyed but that fulfillment is NEVER described within the pages of the Bible. So anyone "sticking to the Bible" will never ever learn when the prophesies are fulfilled...never.

Perhaps it is called "history". So what? That's a different question from the question of whether it is true.

If one wants to know what God did in human history, then one needs to learn what happened in history. There is no other way.

Now for interests sake, if you want to stick to discussing merely what those who men said about the dating of Revelation 13, leaving out Revelation 12 and 14 and the other chapters, I could look into it although I find sticking to what two men few heard of said on a matter that the whole church has thoughts about rather myopic.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Not in the Bible, for you, it did not happen.

False.

If it's not in the Bible, then I am under no obligation to believe it. Do you have a problem with that?

Your ad hominem attacks show that He is not speaking to you.

What are you talking about? Quote my exact words (and only those words) that you are accusing of being "ad hominem attacks".

Again, you believe those men

Which men?

You have the standard that you expect Peter and Paul to have written about their deaths after their deaths and that would have become canon?

I have the standard that neither Peter nor Paul nor any other Scripture writer wrote that Nero put Peter and/or Paul to death. Do you have a problem with that?

Unless those men wrote how they died after they had died, you do not believe any historical account of how they died?

I said nothing about them writing after they died. Obviously everything they wrote they wrote before they died.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

False.

Glad to read this. Please then stop requiring what I say to be in the Bible if this is not a requirement you demand of what you say and think.

If it's not in the Bible, then I am under no obligation to believe it. Do you have a problem with that?

For me it is, of course, no problem. But it does give you a reason in your own mind to reject truth because it is not in the Bible and you do not like it. Means your ability to learn is severely hampered.

What are you talking about? Quote my exact words (and only those words) that you are accusing of being "ad hominem attacks".

"when you try to sell your claim" is accusing me of "selling" something which is a mild character attack.
"you've not carefully read nor reflected upon what I've written in this thread, so that's no surprise" which is an untrue personal attack instead of defending your position. There is more but it takes some work and you started out early with the personal attacks. It is a way of your dealing with being unable to defend your position. Mostly it starts with "you are" and attaches an insulting adjective or claim. I can point them out in detail as we go. Won't take long.

Which men?

Gentry and Russel. You know, despite your claim that they are promiment, I have never heard of them before.

I have the standard that neither Peter nor Paul nor any other Scripture writer wrote that Nero put Peter and/or Paul to death. Do you have a problem with that?

It is so silly that it is hard to believe a grown man would write them. You "have the standard" that unless Peter and Paul wrote in a gospel or epistle that they were beheaded or crucified under Nero, you give yourself the freedom not to believe they died. I mean they had to write from beyond the grave or it is just not valid for you. I mean that is the most unusual way to dismiss a valid point I have ever heard.

I said nothing about them writing after they died. Obviously everything they wrote they wrote before they died.

You need to tell me how a man can write for sure that he is about to die, given he has a scribe or writing materials in his cell or with his as the soldiers drag him out, and that is cherished and kept for generations to read later. How is this supposed to happen in the 6th decade?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

With which of these two, conflicting preterist claims do you agree, concerning the dating of the book of Revelation?

James Stuart Russell (the early date):

VS
​

Kenneth L. Gentry (the late date):

Russell has not considered the obvious problem that if John was boiled in oil and then sentenced to Patmos, persecution had obviously already begun. He thinks persecution started later ignoring the fact that John was already persecuted, being sentenced. So there is a big gap in his thinking. This is probably why he does not consider that John obviously wrote his piece DURING the persecution.

But to insist that 64 or 65 is correct (the usual references to "early" and "late" date are not only 1 year apart) is also ignoring the possibility that John being sentenced happened early in the persecution after the fire.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Please give me the month and year Revelation 13 was written. Without that information, I cannot tell you if it was before the month and year Nero started persecuting Christians or not.

Which means that, though you claim Revelation 13 was written to picture Nero as persecuting Christians, you do not know whether or not to say that Revelation 13 was predictive of future events.

If one wants to know what God did in human history, then one needs to learn what happened in history. There is no other way.

Your problem, here, is that I am obviously under no obligation to equate whatever you choose to call "what God did in history" with what God did in history.

In the NT, Jesus predicted the temple being destroyed

If you can say that, then why are you afraid to likewise say that John, in Revelation 13, predicted a persecution of Christians by Nero? Here's why: Because you know that to say so would be for you to contradict your claim that Nero had already been persecuting Christians (including John, himself) when John wrote Revelation 13.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

John obviously wrote his piece DURING the persecution.

If John obviously wrote Revelation 13 DURING a persecution, then Revelation 13 is not a prediction of whatever persecution that was. So then, what is Revelation 13? Is it 1) a prediction of events yet future to the time of its writing, or 2) a recitation of then past and present events that John and his 1st century Christian readers already knew about from their own, painful experience of and involvement in them? Which is it?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If John obviously wrote Revelation 13 DURING a persecution, then Revelation 13 is not a prediction of whatever persecution that was.

Not so. This is not an either or. The persecution got worse and would be the worst the church had ever faced. So if John was sentenced early, which is likely considering the year Peter and Paul were killed, then it was to get a lot worse and so still predicting what was to come and comforting the believers in that.

So then, what is Revelation 13? Is it 1) a prediction of events yet future to the time of its writing, or 2) a recitation of then past and present events that John and his 1st century Christian readers already knew about from their own, painful experience of and involvement in them? Which is it?

There is mild persecution and there is severe persecution. Being unable to get a job is not the same as being strapped to a pole and set on fire alive to provide light for a garden party. Christians today in the west have experienced professional persecution and yet they were not murdered. Please do not make it an either or.

During the persecution is the ONLY rational answer as if there were no persecution yet, John would not have been sentenced to Patmos. If the persecution was already over, the whole book makes no sense.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Glad to read this. Please then stop requiring what I say to be in the Bible if this is not a requirement you demand of what you say and think.

For me it is, of course, no problem. But it does give you a reason in your own mind to reject truth because it is not in the Bible and you do not like it. Means your ability to learn is severely hampered.

"when you try to sell your claim" is accusing me of "selling" something which is a mild character attack.
"you've not carefully read nor reflected upon what I've written in this thread, so that's no surprise" which is an untrue personal attack instead of defending your position. There is more but it takes some work and you started out early with the personal attacks. It is a way of your dealing with being unable to defend your position. Mostly it starts with "you are" and attaches an insulting adjective or claim. I can point them out in detail as we go. Won't take long.

Gentry and Russel. You know, despite your claim that they are promiment, I have never heard of them before.

It is so silly that it is hard to believe a grown man would write them. You "have the standard" that unless Peter and Paul wrote in a gospel or epistle that they were beheaded or crucified under Nero, you give yourself the freedom not to believe they died. I mean they had to write from beyond the grave or it is just not valid for you. I mean that is the most unusual way to dismiss a valid point I have ever heard.

You need to tell me how a man can write for sure that he is about to die, given he has a scribe or writing materials in his cell or with his as the soldiers drag him out, and that is cherished and kept for generations to read later. How is this supposed to happen in the 6th decade?

Do you not believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and that its writers, holy men of God, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? From what you've been writing, it sure doesn't sound like you do, since, according to you, God could not impart to a man knowledge of specific details of his death, before he has died.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Not so. This is not an either or.

Yes it is. Either Revelation 13 is a prediction of events future to the time it was written, or it is not.

To say that Revelation 13 is God telling someone who has been suffering persecution that his persecutor has been persecuting him is ridiculous, but that's what you're trying to make of Revelation 13.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

John being sentenced happened early in the persecution after the fire.

So if John was sentenced early

It makes no difference how early within a period of persecution John happens to be persecuted. If he's already been persecuted in a persecution he is writing about, then his writing about it is not a prediction of it.