Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Date of Revelation

Expand Messages
  • Ed Garcia
    Mark, Your points regarding the dating of Revelation (e-mail to Stephen dated 03/03/03) are well taken but are not necessarily convincing. I for one hold to
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 17 9:38 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
      Mark,
       
      Your points regarding the dating of Revelation (e-mail to Stephen dated 03/03/03) are well taken but are not necessarily convincing. I for one hold to the late dating (mid 90s).
       
      The book of Revelation does not mention the destruction of the Temple or of Jerusalem but from this we need not assume that these events had not happened yet. My own personal belief is that Rev. concerns itself with one primary, singular event, the death and resurrection of Jesus. I believe that the book must be read in light of these events. This is at the center of the book as well as human history.
       
      Now, the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem are important historical events and of eschatological significance but they are more a sub-theme of the book and part of an overall picture (in that they result from the death of Jesus).
       
      As I recall the persecution under Nero was local (Rome) and not empire wide. I do not agree with applying this event empire-wide. You say "The tribulation for the early Christians occurred under Nero". Nero's persecution was not empire-wide. The church world-wide was not wiped out, not even the church in Rome.
       
      The number of the beast is highly debatable and Nero is not the only conclusion. I have always thought that the Nero solution was very weak.
       
      Rev. 17:10, the 6th king would not necessarily be Nero. As with many other aspects of Revelation the interpretation of this verse is debatable.
       
      But to me Revelation is best understood as being of later date.
       
      Sincerely,
      Ed Garcia
    • coates
      Message Might I suggest that our terms of reference include previous postings to this list about this topic and not only reactions to isolated comments or
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 17 2:22 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Message
         
        Might I suggest that our terms of reference include previous postings to this list  about this topic and not only reactions to isolated comments or references. I think that various arguments around  dating have already been made and that members of the list/group such as Kenneth Gentry have valuable contributions to make above "personal beliefs". Perhaps the debates around 60s and 90s dating need a more specific reference framework by which we can make a more productive debate.
         
        Jason Coates
        Johannesburg, S. Africa 
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.