(Jerusalem) Is The Whore, Mystery Babylon The Great.

[truth7t7]

11 hours ago, irishbeast said:

Have you considered that the symbols in Revelation might have more than one historical fulfillment, or serve as timeless warnings for God's people across all generations?

No need for multiple fulfillments, the opinion is self explanatory

Jerusalem is guilty of the prophets blood, Rome didn't exist during the lives of the prophets

Jerusalem is the "Great City" upon "Seven Mounts" as clearly shown, the simple conclusion is just accept God's words that are simple and clear

 

Edited June 9 by truth7t7

[truth7t7]

11 hours ago, irishbeast said:

The dating of Revelation (whether early or late) significantly affects interpretations—particularly if one views the text through a preterist, historicist, or futurist lens. An early dating (before AD 70) would naturally lend weight to Jerusalem being Mystery Babylon due to the destruction of the Temple and city. A later dating (around AD 96) usually directs interpretations towards Rome, representing oppressive imperial power and spiritual corruption.

When Was The Book Of Revelation Written?

Author: Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

 

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

 

Jerome AD 340-420

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

Edited June 9 by truth7t7

[Excalibur]

On 6/8/2025 at 8:54 PM, truth7t7 said:

Big Smiles "No"

Matthew 24 in the Olivet discourse is "Future Unfulfilled"

Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD "Future Unfulfilled"

Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation "Future Unfulfilled"

Matthew 24:29-31 The Lord's second coming "Future Unfulfilled"

Jesus Is The Lord

Strange that you chose to quote from Matthew in order to prove you’re not a Preterist, rather than quoting from the book of Revelation. 

[truth7t7]

7 hours ago, Excalibur said:

Strange that you chose to quote from Matthew in order to prove you’re not a Preterist, rather than quoting from the book of Revelation. 

The Olivet discourse found in Matthew Chapter 24 is the testing ground for determining a preterist

My belief is a "Futurist"

A.) "Futurist" believe all three mentioned below are future unfulfilled, such as myself

B.) "Partial Preterist" believe items 1 & 2 have been fulfilled in the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies

C.) "Full Preterist" believe all 3 items have been fulfilled

1.) Matt 24:15 Daniel's AOD 

2.) Matt 24:21 The Great Tribulation

3.) Matt 24:29-31 The Second Coming

Edited Sunday at 03:18 AM by truth7t7