Unravelling Revelation

[Brakelite]

In general terms, the book of Revelation is about Jesus Christ. It's a revelation of Him. But not only of Him in the sanctuary in heaven, but a revelation of Him actively engaging with His people throughout Christian history. And finally, its a revelation of Jesus Christ in His final remnant church as a people who have the faith of Jesus, and who keep His commandments. A “ glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but holy and without blemish. ”
Ephesians 5:27. Christ in us, the hope of glory.

 

[quietthinker]

In general terms, the book of Revelation is about Jesus Christ. It's a revelation of Him. But not only of Him in the sanctuary in heaven, but a revelation of Him actively engaging with His people throughout Christian history. And finally, its a revelation of Jesus Christ in His final remnant church as a people who have the faith of Jesus, and who keep His commandments. A “ glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but holy and without blemish. ”
Ephesians 5:27. Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Could it be that heaven is the sanctuary, even further, Jesus is the sanctuary?

 

[APAK]

No dates are known with absolute certainty. 60 years after the resurrection would be around 90 AD - 6 years before this report.

There was nothing to stop John having dictated it, say 3-5 years earlier - in fact, that would have been the normal practice at the time, when few people did enough writing to write neatly. We know, for example, that Paul dictated at least some of his letters.

Sounds good Deb, although your argument is quite weak. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your work here for this thread...

 

[Rockerduck]

9Sounds good Deb, although your argument is quite weak. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your work here for this thread...

The Apostle John was the easiest to date because at the time he was the last surviving Apostle, and the records of Roman exile at Patmos. Around 90 ad is accurate. Under the power of the Holy Spirit, he could dictate anything. He did mostly likely had scribe with him at all times, just in case he saw a vision. Which he could have had many that were not written down.

 

[APAK]

The Apostle John was the easiest to date because at the time he was the last surviving Apostle, and the records of Roman exile at Patmos. Around 90 ad is accurate. Under the power of the Holy Spirit, he could dictate anything. He did mostly likely had scribe with him at all times, just in case he saw a vision. Which he could have had many that were not written down.

Nice try although stating John was last surviving apostle and therefore the 90s AD is therefore accurate is an even weaker argument. Now you have to prove or show two arguments.

Here's a question for you and I have quite a few on this subject, if the Book of Revelation was written in or around 96 AD, twenty-six years after the destruction of the Temple and the Holy City (70 AD), it is shocking John didn’t mention the massacre of the city and Temple. It must have been important to describe at least the destruction of the Temple. And furthermore, John did describe the Temple as if it still existed when he wrote his Book.

Care to answer my query?

 

[CTK]

Nice try although stating John was last surviving apostle and therefore the 90s AD is therefore accurate is an even weaker argument. Now you have to prove or show two arguments.

Here's a question for you and I have quite a few on this subject, if the Book of Revelation was written in or around 96 AD, twenty-six years after the destruction of the Temple and the Holy City (70 AD), it is shocking John didn’t mention the massacre of the city and Temple. It must have been important to describe at least the destruction of the Temple. And furthermore, John did describe the Temple as if it still existed when he wrote his Book.

Care to answer my query?

I think it might be answered by mentioning that John was nothing more than a scribe here. He had absolutely no input in what was to be written down. This was ALL a revelation that came directly from the mind of Jesus.

 

[Verily]

It shows John has his writing instrument in hand when the seven thunders uttered their voices because it says

Rev 10:4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

 

[Rockerduck]

Nice try although stating John was last surviving apostle and therefore the 90s AD is therefore accurate is an even weaker argument. Now you have to prove or show two arguments.

Here's a question for you and I have quite a few on this subject, if the Book of Revelation was written in or around 96 AD, twenty-six years after the destruction of the Temple and the Holy City (70 AD), it is shocking John didn’t mention the massacre of the city and Temple. It must have been important to describe at least the destruction of the Temple. And furthermore, John did describe the Temple as if it still existed when he wrote his Book.

Care to answer my query?

In the Gospel of John, John did not mention Jesus's temptation or the last supper, nor any parables. He wrote the Gospel of John about the deity of the risen Christ, after everything happened. In Revelation, it is all about Jesus. This earth world we live in is not his or our home. So why would he write about something that Jesus already said would happen, happened. He wrote about the risen Christ in both books. Except in Revelation, he was in the Spirit on Sunday, when Revelation was given to John to write down, or not to write down.

By the way, I knew George Beverly Shea, back in the 90's when he was 85 yrs old. He was in great shape, still singing and very, very active. I have an 88 yr old friend that drives all over the place, between 3 states, and calls and talks to my wife all the time. Sharp mind and good shape. So its conceivable to me how John could be in good shape, and sharp mind.

 

[APAK]

I think it might be answered by mentioning that John was nothing more than a scribe here. He had absolutely no input in what was to be written down. This was ALL a revelation that came directly from the mind of Jesus.

And of course this is all true. So then why, or the purpose of the Temple mentioned if it was already destroyed, along with the city and most places in Judea?

 

[APAK]

In the Gospel of John, John did not mention Jesus's temptation or the last supper, nor any parables. He wrote the Gospel of John about the deity of the risen Christ, after everything happened. In Revelation, it is all about Jesus. This earth world we live in is not his or our home. So why would he write about something that Jesus already said would happen, happened. He wrote about the risen Christ in both books. Except in Revelation, he was in the Spirit on Sunday, when Revelation was given to John to write down, or not to write down.

By the way, I knew George Beverly Shea, back in the 90's when he was 85 yrs old. He was in great shape, still singing and very, very active. I have an 88 yr old friend that drives all over the place, between 3 states, and calls and talks to my wife all the time. Sharp mind and good shape. So its conceivable to me how John could be in good shape, and sharp mind.

More of the same weak arguments and an attempt at a poor analogy. The Temple as a physical building and its three major sections and its spiritual representation is key in the Book of revelation to who is being save and who is not...or not a part of the New Jerusalem. It is the central symbol of true worship and the presence of God. It is there for a reason, and it's logical that this structure was not destroyed yet at the time of the writing.

In the book of Revelation, the temple symbolizes God's people and is a metaphor for the church's eternal protection. John’s measuring of the temple in Revelation 11:1-2 recalls the measurements of the new temple and city in Ezekiel 40-48, which are eternally secure...

And the only illogical counter to all this, is that the Temple is in Revelation and seen as a literal structure that will be rebuilt during a 2000 plus year Tribulation period into the future. If you are premillennialist that this answer will suit you of course, and you would then be wrong.

You see, in Revelation 21:22, the vision of the new heaven and earth shows a city without a physical temple, as God Himself will be the temple, dwelling among His people and making His presence known everywhere.

And still on about the 80+ age and you do not have an issue with it? Easy to please then...

You know walking for even 2 miles at the age of 90 is a major achievement, let along 100 miles or more to..

Remember again...

In Revelation 10:11, it says that John must “prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.”

How did John actually walk and talk and write and dispatch writings in his 90s? And Jerome says he needed much help just to go to the local church....

Believe as you must, without further analysis.

 

[Verily]

Moses was like 120 years old wasnt he?

 

[APAK]

Moses was like 120 years old wasnt he?

Hahaha..here we go again, trying to find a quick answer for a patch then to move on I see...trying to beat this horse to death that will not die unfortunately for you.

God decreed that 120 years would be the upper limit for human lifespan, as mentioned in Genesis 6, where God tells Noah that man's days will be 120 years. However, Moses's lifespan of exactly 120 years is often seen as a special case, and a model of a long, productive life.

After Moses, only one person is recorded as having lived past 120 years (2 Chronicles 24:15).4 The decrease in lifespans in the New Testament period could be attributed to the loss of the ideal living conditions that existed before the flood, as suggested by the canopy theory, although this theory is no longer widely accepted. Additionally, the human genetic code may have developed more defects over time, leading to shorter lifespans.

And so you cannot show any logic for the write date of 96 + AD, say versus 65-68 AD...right? I can..or more credible reasoning.

Gotta hit the sack though...next day then...

 

[Verily]

Hahaha..here we go again, trying to find a quick answer for a patch then to move on I see...trying to beat this horse to death that will not die unfortunately for you.

God decreed that 120 years would be the upper limit for human lifespan, as mentioned in Genesis 6, where God tells Noah that man's days will be 120 years. However, Moses's lifespan of exactly 120 years is often seen as a special case, and a model of a long, productive life.

After Moses, only one person is recorded as having lived past 120 years (2 Chronicles 24:15).4 The decrease in lifespans in the New Testament period could be attributed to the loss of the ideal living conditions that existed before the flood, as suggested by the canopy theory, although this theory is no longer widely accepted. Additionally, the human genetic code may have developed more defects over time, leading to shorter lifespans.

And so you cannot show any logic for the write date of 96 + AD, say versus 65-68 AD...right? I can..or more credible reasoning.

Gotta hit the sack though...next day then...

I have no clue whatsoever what you are going on about

 

[quietthinker]

Revelation 2 & 3

Before the start of the revelation itself, John is given seven “personal messages” for seven of the churches in Asia Minor. They are a very mixed bag: some are large and thriving, others small and struggling. Some are faithful; others are compromising with the world around them. Some are complacent; others are being fiercely persecuted. But Jesus assures them that He knows them all intimately. He knows their strengths and their weaknesses; He gives credit where credit is due, but pulls no punches where He sees sin being tolerated. And to each church He has a message of encouragement for the faithful: after the struggles and sufferings of this life, they will participate in the blessings of the age to come.

Many people like to see these seven churches as representing different stages of church history. But churches have been as varied as this in every age - including our own. Any one of them could be our church! And so these ‘letters’ are for us, too; we should pay attention to Christ’s warnings, and take encouragement from His promises.

Each letter follows the same pattern. They begin by introducing their Author, using elements from John’s vision of Jesus in chapter 1. Jesus reminds each church that He knows exactly what is going on there; then He lists their good and bad features. There are many historical references - not to church history, but to the history of Israel! For God’s people face the same challenges and make the same mistakes under both old and new covenants. The love of the Ephesians has grown cold, just as Israel’s did. And Balaam and Jezebel (who attempted to lead Israel astray in the distant past) have their counterparts in the first century, and also in modern times.

Having diagnosed the problems facing each church, Jesus prescribes His treatment - which in most cases is repentance. But He calls on the faithful to persevere. And to encourage them, He tells them of the wonderful things that He has in store for “the one who is victorious.” Many of these (such as the tree of life, the white robes, the book of life and the new Jerusalem) are mentioned again in the final chapters of Revelation.

So these introductory chapters are like an overview of the whole book. The church is in the midst of an evil world, struggling against false teaching and persecution; but Christ is watching over us. We need encouragement to remain faithful right to the bitter end - and Revelation provides that in spades!

I have just watched this presentation.

It opens a perspective of Jesus generally unknown in much of Christendom. It also touches on Revelation later in the dialog which ties in with your/ our discussion. You might consider viewing/ listening to it?

 

[Deborah_]

More of the same weak arguments and an attempt at a poor analogy.

When you point the finger...

Your one and only piece of evidence for Revelation not being written in the 90s AD seems to be one report that John was incapable of writing it or even dictating it in 96AD. His capability (or lack of it) in 91, 92, 93 or 94 is unattested. So a date in the early 90s is still easily possible.

if the Book of Revelation was written in or around 96 AD, twenty-six years after the destruction of the Temple and the Holy City (70 AD), it is shocking John didn’t mention the massacre of the city and Temple. It must have been important to describe at least the destruction of the Temple. And furthermore, John did describe the Temple as if it still existed when he wrote his Book.

Why should John have mentioned either of these things? Why the need to describe a historical event that all his readers would have been well aware of?
And you are forgetting that God does still have a Temple - the Church.

 

[CTK]

And of course this is all true. So then why, or the purpose of the Temple mentioned if it was already destroyed, along with the city and most places in Judea?

What verses in Revelation are you referring to?

 

[Deborah_]

Revelation 4 & 5

These two chapters form an extended introduction to the first main vision (the seven seals), and also set the scene for the whole of the remainder of the book. John is no longer on earth; in his vision he has been transported into heaven (Revelation 4:1), from where he can see events on earth from God’s perspective.

As with the vision of Christ in chapter 1, the description of heaven is symbolic, not photographic. It’s rather like the diagrams of atomic structure that you find in school science textbooks: the electrons appear to have have tidy circular orbits around the central nucleus, and the whole thing looks very much like a miniature solar system. But atoms aren’t really like that. The diagram isn’t giving you a picture of “what an atom looks like”; it’s intended to help you understand the relationships between the different components and how they ‘work’. It’s the same kind of thing here: God’s throne is depicted as being at the centre of heaven, with concentric circles of “four living creatures”, “24 elders” and thousands of angels around it. But this isn’t a “picture” of what we would see if we were actually in heaven; it’s explaining the relationship of everything (creation, church and angels) to God, using pictorial language mostly drawn from the Old Testament.

What does it tell us? That God is at the very centre of all things. That He reigns (He's sitting on His glorious throne), and that His throne room is far more magnificent than Caesar’s! God Himself is indescribable and undescribed, but all the various manifestations of His presence in times past (the theophany at Sinai, the visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel) are fused together in the description of His glory. Yet at the same time the prominence of the rainbow, the symbol of His grace (see Genesis 9:13), makes Heaven a welcoming place.

Immediately surrounding the throne are four “living creatures”. They represent Creation, which continuously declares the glory of God (Psalm 19:1,2). Around them is a circle of 24 thrones, on which sit “elders”. These represent the New Creation, the people of God, who reign in the heavenly places even while still on earth (Ephesians 2:6,7). Why 24 of them? 24 is 12 + 12, which stands for both Israel and the Church, united under the new covenant. All join together with Nature and with the hosts of angels in constant worship of their Creator.

The Holy Spirit, represented by a seven-branched lampstand, is located immediately in front of the throne of God. Jesus makes a dramatic entrance halfway through the vision, as if returning to Heaven after His ascension (Revelation 5:5,6). Yet He appears right at the centre of the throne of God, and his seven horns and seven eyes indicate omnipotence and omniscience. And the hosts of heaven worship Him along with the Father. Have you got the message? Jesus is God! But at the same time He is subordinate to the Father, and receives authority from Him (Revelation 5:7).

 

[marks]

It’s a mistake, I think, to regard Revelation as a blow-by-blow sequential account of the end times. The visions as numbered here don’t follow a chronological order; each one stands alone, and they all cover much the same ground but from different angles.

Personally I find the Revelation to primarily be narrative prophecy as are the other prophetic passages.

I think that we should read it sequencially, and that the language directs us to do that.

Just my 2 cents . . .

Much love!

 

[Brakelite]

The Temple as a physical building and its three major sections and its spiritual representation is key in the Book of revelation to who is being save and who is not...or not a part of the New Jerusalem. It is the central symbol of true worship and the presence of God. It is there for a reason, and it's logical that this structure was not destroyed yet at the time of the writing.

There's one major issue with the assumption that John is referencing the literal temple in Jerusalem as he wrote Revelation.
The Bible literally tells us it is in heaven.
“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. ”
Revelation 11:19 KJV
Unfeigned Bible
Note that this temple has the ark of the covenant.... the original of which the one spoken of in the OT before Jeremiah hid it in a cave, was a copy. As was the Tabernacle and the temple in the OT, copies... the ark of the covenant had been seen in any temple for over 400 years.
“1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. ”
Hebrews 8:1-5 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

Here is revealed the sanctuary of the new covenant. The sanctuary of the first covenant was pitched by man, built by Moses; this is pitched by the Lord, not by man. In that sanctuary the earthly priests performed their service; in this, Christ, our great High Priest, ministers at God's right hand. One sanctuary was on earth, the other is in heaven. It is the sanctuary in heaven, incorporating the throne of God, the angelic host, and the new Jerusalem, that is regretted so often by John in the Revelation.
As for the text that says,
“And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. ”
Revelation 10:11 KJV
Unfeigned Bible
is an instruction to the church of that time to which that particular section of Revelation occurs in the timeline. The church that ate that little book, The church which found it both bitter and sweet, the church which then went out to proclaim the gospel as revealed for that time in chapter 14. The church which is spoken of as a woman in chapter 12, a persecuted remnant in chapter 13, but a victorious bride in chapter 14. You cannot single out one verse and think that it stands alone and thus make a broad claim as to its relevance without taking into account the full picture and scope of Revelation, using Daniel as your foundation, and realising the historic scope encompasses the whole of humanity.
And that measuring of the sanctuary? The church... the people of God are the NT sanctuary/ temple of God... that measuring refers to judgement. S judgement that is even now in progress to determine who are sheep and who are goats, that there is no mistake during the soon to come harvest. You had that part correct.

 

[ewq1938]

Either way, Rev does not mention the destruction of the temple or city. It doesn't predict it will happen, nor speaks of it happening in the past. Complete silence of those events which means they are irrelevant to what Rev is teaching.

Ad70 is the Jewish Armageddon. It was mostly unrelated to Christians and Christianity and has no bearing on us at all.