Does it not make sense that all of the Gospels and Epistles with the possible exception of Revelation were penned prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD? I find it hard to believe that if so why did none of the Apostles discuss it Post destruction. We know Peter and Paul were dead prior to 70 AD.
New Testament Timeline. Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD
- Thread starter TEXBOW
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
I kinda think you answered your own question Tex. Obviously Jehovah would not have penned any of the Greek scriptures through men who had died. Therefore most of the Greek passages were prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course John lived several years after, penning the last of God's word, which we believe was 3 Jn penned in 98 CE. So logically only 4 were penned after the destruction of Jerusalem sir.
You know I've always questioned the standard 'official' date of Revelation around 95 AD. It never made any sense to me since John would have to be 90 -110 years old at the time of this writing in my reckoning. All the other apostles were dead before 66 AD also by my reckoning.
And then there's Matthew 24 and many OT prophecies ....
More folks are really and seriously starting to question this 95-100 AD date. And many, and I'm one of them seem to believe it is to support a Futuristic view of the 'end of days, exclusively.
Here's just one of many people providing their input...
--------------------
Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed. - Community in Mission
.............
"But not, the most significant Father to attest to a mid-nineties date is Irenaeus. It is on him that most other Father’s based their conclusion. But it must be said, that in terms of dating, Ireneus is a bit unreliable. For example, he argues that Jesus was 50 when he was crucified. Thus, though Irenaeus gives us a lot of good biblical insight, he is less reliable for testimony referencing dates and time frames. Likewise, the grammar of the Greek sentence wherein Ireneus states the date of 96 AD is unclear. It can be translated two ways:
1- “John had this vision, near the end of his life, during the reign of Domitian” or 2- “John had this vision and lived on to the reign of Domitian“
Thus the minority opinion does not disregard the testimony of the Fathers, but it is understood by these scholars as more vague...."
----------------------------------------
Well I do disregard the so-called 'Fathers' testimonies as bunk...
I've seen some claim that John's Gospel was written in 80-90 AD. 1,2,3 John in 90-95 AD. Seems like it would have been mentioned if those dates are correct. I can understand Revelation not mentioning it due to it's purpose. One of those things to ponder.
I've been studying the writings of the early Church Fathers. Lots of information out there and the vast majority from those who lived from 100 AD to 300 AD are in line with the scriptures. They give a lot of information on how Gnostic cults and various false teachings were attempting to corrupt and infiltrate the Church at that time. Much of their information can be validated. I of course do not consider anything they pen as scripture. We know a great deal about other historical figures like Julis Ceaser and Alexander the Great from writings even prior to the ending of the 1st century. We run with that knowledge but when it comes to early Church history many find fault. What I can't get around is why would Irenaeus lie? He is solid on many other things. I have found that many hyper-grace followers wish and need for Revelations to be written at an earlier date. The letters to the 7 Churches counter some of their doctrines if written at a later date. It's always good to investigate those who wish to change our historical understandings over the past 2000 years. Many have a motive that might not be obvious at first glance.
DancesWithGnostics
Well-Known Member
Revelation could have been writtn by 66 AD
I don't think anyone will ever know for sure - late-daters seem to hold the field
I don't think anyone will ever know for sure - late-daters seem to hold the field
It could have. If I have to vote I'm going with the later date but I would not fall on my sword on this question.
Well it has already been said, Irenaeus was off on some date on other matters....50 years old for Christ when he went to the Cross. Also after 70 AD, the believers post that date and the 'Fathers' were also wondering as the disciples were during their lives, when would Christ return. I firmly believe they were believing he would return in their lifetime. There are historians including Josephus a Jew Christian and pagans who claimed they witnessed activities in the skies above Jerusalem in 70 AD and they saw figures and even angel like figures....they said it not me.
Christ did say he would establish his Kingdom even before 70 AD - at his ascension. And I have to believe this in scripture.
So many after 100 AD were wondering when Christ would return as they believe he never did yet, not even to rapture a small gathering of mostly Jew Christians during the 66-70 AD period as some witnessed this event.
And I really do not think that the Fathers meant or believed 'his FINAL return' would occur nearly 2000 years or more in their future either, as Futurist have it figured?
Now I do believe we are in the latter days since Christ's ascension, and the last of these days is when the execution of the already determined judgment made during the course of this age is done. When the believers and non-believers are separated and the new earth and heaven is created or supplants this one...we are in the Kingdom of God today, with Christ already ruling as he observed and guided the results of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, for starters. The last of the Jew Christians who would ever live fled Jerusalem or were unfortunate and died either in the City or attempting to flee. Most heeded the warning given by Christ and fled when at 1st time the Romans surrounded the city (the abomination) and during the lull period when things were still relatively calm, and well before the hammer came down in 70 AD.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Because the 12 were among the dead in Christ (the house of Israel).
Paul, on the other hand, was only on the cusp himself, and only sent to the gentiles to teach for the long haul, for the complete times of the gentiles...while Israel sleeps.
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
You may very well be correct Apak, most likely no one knows the exact date. We believe it was written in 96 CE this is our understanding: *** si p. 264 par. 5 Bible Book Number 66—Revelation
According to the earliest testimony, John wrote the Revelation about 96 C.E., approximately 26 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be toward the close of the reign of Emperor Domitian. In verification of this, Irenaeus in his “Against Heresies” (V, xxx) says of the Apocalypse: “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” * Eusebius and Jerome both agree with this testimony. Domitian was the brother of Titus, who led the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem. He became emperor at the death of Titus, 15 years before the book of Revelation was written. He demanded that he be worshiped as god and assumed the title Dominus et Deus noster (meaning “Our Lord and God”)*. Emperor worship did not disturb those who worshiped false gods, but it could not be indulged in by the early Christians, who refused to compromise their faith on this point. Thus, toward the close of Domitian’s rule (81-96 C.E.), severe persecution came upon the Christians. It is thought that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian. When Domitian was assassinated in 96 C.E., he was succeeded by the more tolerant emperor Nerva, who evidently released John. It was during this imprisonment on Patmos that John received the visions he wrote down.
*1 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pages 559-60.
*2 The Lives of the Caesars (Domitian, XIII, 2)
Robert Gwin
Well-Known Member
A copy of what I posted to Apak, Tex: Most likely no one knows the exact date. We believe it was written in 96 CE this is our understanding: *** si p. 264 par. 5 Bible Book Number 66—Revelation
According to the earliest testimony, John wrote the Revelation about 96 C.E., approximately 26 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be toward the close of the reign of Emperor Domitian. In verification of this, Irenaeus in his “Against Heresies” (V, xxx) says of the Apocalypse: “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” * Eusebius and Jerome both agree with this testimony. Domitian was the brother of Titus, who led the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem. He became emperor at the death of Titus, 15 years before the book of Revelation was written. He demanded that he be worshiped as god and assumed the title Dominus et Deus noster (meaning “Our Lord and God”)*. Emperor worship did not disturb those who worshiped false gods, but it could not be indulged in by the early Christians, who refused to compromise their faith on this point. Thus, toward the close of Domitian’s rule (81-96 C.E.), severe persecution came upon the Christians. It is thought that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian. When Domitian was assassinated in 96 C.E., he was succeeded by the more tolerant emperor Nerva, who evidently released John. It was during this imprisonment on Patmos that John received the visions he wrote down.
*1 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pages 559-60.
*2 The Lives of the Caesars (Domitian, XIII, 2)
ScottA
Well-Known Member
While all of the timeline issues may be interesting, all such are of the world...(among the tares/weeds).
Better to hear what the Spirit says.
Better to hear what the Spirit says.
I'm really not too keen in believing in the 'extreme' late date of the writing of Revelation. It really sticks out like a sore thumb.
Something else to consider...
Many argue that the Book of Revelation is John’s theological presentation of the Mount Olivet discourse, which is present in the other three Gospels, but missing from John’s message. Therefore, they say that the content of Revelation corresponds to the Mount Olivet discourse, which prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.
And finally, since the first 3 verses and the first part of verse 4 in Chapter 1 is written in the 3rd person, it is uncertain that John actually wrote the ‘last’ Book. Someone could have made a later copy of a much earlier version written before 70 AD, and then was not necessarily written by John in the 60s of the 1st century at all.
Even with the unlikely reality that Revelation was written after 90 AD, one has to really, really consider there must be words said in it for the 66-70AD event! It was a landmark event that ended the age of old Israel, for good, never to return to it, ever.
As Isaiah 11:11-12 says:
On that day the Lord will extend His hand a second time to recover the remnant of His people from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; He will collect the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Now the 1st time back to the 'Promised Land' and the recovery of the righteous remnant began in Ezra's time from Babylon to rebuild physical Jerusalem and the physical Temple. It ended right up to the minute of the Day of Pentecost. The 2nd time of the recovery of the righteous remnant is through the root of Jesse, Christ, at and after the Day of Pentecost, into the NEW FINAL promised land not of this earth, of the Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem, and not with the rebuilding of another physical Jerusalem and not another physical Temple. That would be a rather astonishing and strange idea based on what we know of scripture alone.
The second wave of old Israelite remnant recovery ended by 70 AD that also included the apostles and Paul and those in Christ who fled by 70 AD and of course some died trying to flee. Since that time and into the future, we had NO new old Israelite remnant recovery plan underway. The recovery plan today and into the future will be for all Israel in the spirit of Christ where physical appearance and ancestry mean nothing and is completely irrelevant!
Romans chapter 11:1 and 25-28 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
Last edited:
GISMYS_7
Well-Known Member
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
According to Wikipedia John was born in 6AD, so only 89 in 95AD. I think he was born later in the late teens, like 18AD. Not to make him appear younger, just pointing out that John seemed to be the youngest disciple of Jesus.
Why would the early church fathers claim a later date, to make it look like a 2021 conspiracy? The conspiracy would be to claim the early church fathers were wrong in the second century, not that many in 2021 concocted it all up. Obviously they all were confused back then, if you do not agree with them.
It would seem no one can know when Revelation was actually written and thus cannot use any date for any eschatological bias.
One thing that lends itself to a later date is the letter to Ephesus. Right before Paul's death in 67 AD in his letter to the Church Ephesians 1:15 Paul seems pleased with the condition of the Church at that time. Mentioning their faith in the Lord and love of the Saints. In Revelation 2:4 Jesus rebukes the Church for leaving their first love. This seems to point to a change from 67 AD to the date of Revelation 2:4 for the Church. We of course do not know how long that change took place but it suggests that it was different than it was in Paul's time. It would also suggest that the change would have taken place after those disciples under Paul's leadership had died.
We must consider this too. (see below)
One thing that lends itself to a later date is the letter to Ephesus. Right before Paul's death in 67 AD in his letter to the Church Ephesians 1:15 Paul seems pleased with the condition of the Church at that time. Mentioning their faith in the Lord and love of the Saints. In Revelation 2:4 Jesus rebukes the Church for leaving their first love. This seems to point to a change from 67 AD to the date of Revelation 2:4 for the Church. We of course do not know how long that change took place but it suggests that it was different than it was in Paul's time. It would also suggest that the change would have taken place after those disciples under Paul's leadership had died.
History has Timothy being killed in 97 AD and that he was the Bishop of the Church in Ephesus. History has it that he was stoned to death for preaching against pagan worship. This gives a clue that things started going bad in his later years. If Timothy was still the Bishop in 95 AD was the letter in Revelation written during his watch?
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
When was the first recovery?
The first recovery was defunct by the time Jesus was born. Wickedness had already permeated the Judean culture. You can claim 70AD was the final nail in the coffin, but the coffin had the body in 30AD, at the Cross. That was the end of the first recovery. The Second Coming is going to be the Second Recovery. There has been no full gathering of Israel out of the Nations.
The church is the fulness of the Gentiles, not the fulness of National Israel. How can you then claim the end of the second recovery in 70AD, when the church was in her infancy? Do you claim the end of the church, and we are not even part of the church as well? What was the last 1900 years if neither about Israel or about the Gentile church? It seems we have skipped a few steps here.
Jesus was physically born, but then cut off. His earthly ministry placed on hold until after the fulness of the Gentiles was complete. The church has been physically gathering in Paradise. This is still future:
"But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked."
The coming in fire to end Adam's flesh and blood is still future. The wicked are still alive and kicking on the earth. They have not come to an end.
Similar threads
