Revelation and the Olivet Prophecy

[puritan lad]

Well I did give a long list of quotes there.

Good, then it shouldn't be too hard to explain how any one of these shows that “that Revelation intends to give a warning and description of events which would come upon and endanger the Christian body during the whole time between the giving of the Revelation and the return of Christ”. I'll let you pick any one that you choose.

True, they would also experience these things “shortly”, “near”, “quickly”, and “at hand” because they were “about to take place” in the First Century.

Some of them, not all of them.

Says who? (Actually, I agree that a very few toward the end are not, but most of them are).

So what's the point of repeating the Olivet prophecy in the Revelation, as you say chapter 6 does?

To let them know that their tribulation would be for a short time, and that God would avenge them shortly.

Which is why they needed to know about the destruction of Jerusalem?

They needed to know about the coming judgment upon their persecutors. This the main purpose of prophecy, to edify, exhort, and comfort (1 Cor. 14:2)

From Revelation 2-3, we find only two churches suffering persecution (Smyrna and Pergamum). The others were subuding their enemies (Ephesus), permitting apostasy (Thyatira, though Pergamum was doing the same also), or succumbing to the temptations of the world and enjoying the easy life (Sardis and Laodicea). There is no evidence that they were all suffering widespread persecution from both Nero and the Jews.

You are kidding, correct? Did you ever hear about the great fire in Rome? Are you aware that all of the Apostles except for John died a martyr's death, mostly had the hand of either Jews or Romans? DO you know why John was on Patmos to begin with? Have you ever read the NT at all? How about John's own words to all seven churches in Rev. 1:9? “I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Sounds like persecution to me.

In addition, Philadelphia is assured that they will be kept from the trial which is yet to come on the OIKOUMNEH. What trial was that? It couldn't have been Nero or the Jews (if they were already persecuting the Christians in Asia Minor), and it couldn't have been the fall of Jerusalem. So what was it?

Well, Christ certainly didn't promise to keep the first Century church of Philadelphia from the Spanish Inquisition. Why would they care about that? He promised to keep them from"... the hour of trial ... is about to (mello) come upon the whole world."

How many martyrs can you find in Revelation 2-3? I can find one - 'Antipas'.

Ever hear of Peter, Paul, James? How about the church at Smyrna?

Rev. 2:9-10
“I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

That's a bit hard to prove, given that the 'main enemy' is the beast, and the beast you acknowledge as Rome.

Not hardly. The main enemy was “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS” who was “drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” (Rev. 17:5-6). The beast, while certainly an enemy, is more of an afterthought, though he was judged as well.

Again, this is true. That shows that “the body of Christ and to the Christians” were the true children of Abraham. The others “lie” and were of the “synagogue of satan”. (Rev. 2:9)

Yes, whoever those 'others' may have been.

Who else would claim to be a “Jew” except someone who was a Jew? It wasn't like Jews were the most loved people on the planet? Maybe you can give some insight on who you think these false Jews are.

I am not interpreting it as the entire planet. I am interpreting it as the Roman empire.

Good. Me too, although the main focus was on the “harlot”, those who dwell upon the land.

I don't completely disagree, and the Romans were also judged because of this (Nero's suicide and the Roman Civil War.)

Are these judgments recorded in Revelation?

Yes. Rev. 13:3,9. I've already expounded this for you elsewhere in this debate.

'...from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.'

That particular indictment hardly extends into the Christian era, does it?

Doesn't it. How about Christ (the son of the owner of the vineyard in Matthew 21)? How about James, Steven and Paul?

Matthew 23:34-36
"Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

[puritan lad]

Here is the big clincher, though by all means not the last of the evidence.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Revelation 11:1,2,8
"Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months... And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

At this point, we are dealing with more than just a similarity of language between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. We are dealing with identical themes, themes have we know have seen their historical fulfillment in 70 AD. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to show that there will be two great tribulations, and two occurances where the holy city (clearly earthly Jerusalem) will be trampled on by Gentiles for 42 months.

Of course, I'm assuming that you accept the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD. In any case, I think the relationship between Revelation and the Olivet Discourse has been firmly established.

[Fortigurn]

This great earthquake is found nowhere in the Olivet prophecy. We do find it in the Old Testament, but we do not find it in any passages pronouncing judgment on Israel.

??? Try Matthew 24:7. These occurred in Caligula's (A.D. 37-41) and Claudius' (A.D. 41-54) reigns. (Acts 16:26) Josephus reports many earthquakes in A.D. 68 in the midst of the Jewish War. He describes one particularly terrifying quake and lightning storm, remarking,"anyone would guess that these wonders foreshadowed some grand calamities that were coming" (Wars 4.4.5). Tacitus reports them throughout Rome, also interpreting them as portents of impending divine judgment (Histories, 1.2-3)

Firstly, there is no 'great earthquake' in the Olivet prophecy (still less in Matthew 24:7). There are 'earthquakes [plural] in divers places', but no eschatological earthquake as we have in Revelation 6.

Secondly, Matthew makes it utterly clear that these 'earthquakes in divers places' are not eschatological events ('the end is still to come', Matthew 24:6).

Thirdly, the earthquake in Revelation 6 is clearly part of the apocalyptic imagery of the passage, and it is therefore invalid for you to attempt to read it as literal. Not only are you reading a symbolic earthquake as literal, you are reading it as more than one earthquake.

Again, all True. It COULD very well be a prophecy against any nation, based on the language above, but isn't. The apocalyptic language used in the NT such as this is almost used exclusively to describe 70 AD.

Whether or not 'the apocalyptic language used in the NT such as this is almost used exclusively to describe 70 AD' is irrelevant. The fact is that it is used elsewhere of other nations. It is clear that Revelation 6 draws from many passages outside the Olivet prophecy, and that it contains imagery which is found nowhere in the Olivet prophecy, but which is found in the judgment prophesies pronounced against Gentile nations in the Old Testament.

At least we agree that the judgments are symbolic and that the imagery is borrowed from the OT.

Well I believe they're symbolic, but you're trying to mix the symbolic and the literal (you want literal earthquakes, but symbolic falling of the stars).

We also agree that these judgments are used upon the enemies of “God's People”.

Yes.

In the meantime, let me point out the problems with the historicist view.

1.) Audience Relevance: Historicism makes the prophecy totally useless and irrelevant to the original audience, the first century churches of Asia Minor. It was they who were told to read, hear, and keep the words of this prophecy (Rev. 1:3). It was they who were told to calculate the number of the beast (13:18). If, as you claim, “Revelation intends to give a warning and description of events which would come upon and endanger the Christian body during the whole time between the giving of the Revelation and the return of Christ”, then this becomes an impossibility.

Firstly, you and I both agree that the beast is Rome, and that this would have been discernable to the 1st century Christians (including the calculation of the beast), so we agree that they had access to the warning for them.

Secondly, the fact that the Revelation contains a prophecy of events beyond their lifetime does not preculde their being able to keep the words of the prophecy.

Thirdly, the 1st century Christian community was multi-generational in any case, which means that some of those who received the book would undoubtedly die before AD 70. Does this mean that the book was not relevant to them?

Fourthly, I need to know exactly which parts of the book you believe terminate in AD 70, and which describe events past this date. Thanks.

2.) Contemporary Expectatation: A First Century Christian, reading this letter, would have never viewed Revelation from a historicist perspective. Time and again Revelation uses time frame references that point to imminent events, events that were about to break upon the world in the First Century.

Firstly, although we find no conclusive references to the Revelation in 1st century Christian texts (it appears explicitly first in Justin Martyr, mid-2nd century), a fact which itself argues for a late date for the writing of the book, we do find that from the 2nd century onward (when expositions of the book do start to appear), it is the Historicist perspective with which the Revelation is understood (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, 180-200 AD).

We have no Christian writings from the 1st to the 10th century which indicate a Praeterist understanding of the book (even though some events were considered to be references to 1st century events). In fact a systematic Praterism does not occur in Christian exposition of Revelation untli the early 17th century (Luis de Alcazar, 1554-1613). Why is this?

This being the case, it is speculative to suggest that the 1st century Christians would never have understood Revelation from a Historicist perspective. Certainly the 1st century Jewish writers (such as Josephus, Rabbi Joseph, and Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai), had no concept of the eschatological events of Daniel 2 and 7 occurring in the 1st century.

Secondly, Revelation draws on Daniel (especially Daniel 7), the events of which cannot be compressed into the 1st century.

The first are the Greek words “tachos” and “en tachei”, which mean "quickly, all at once, with all speed, without delay.“

An adverb of speed does not necessarily indicate a short duration of time. I can say that something will happen 'quickly' without saying that it will happen 'soon'.

All through the Revelation the emphasis with regard to Christ's coming is placed on its speed and suddenness, with the connotation that it will come unexpectedly and with a haste which will preclude remedial action in one's life.

Rev. 1:1 - "...things which must shortly take place"
Rev. 2:16 - "Repent, or else I will come to you quickly"
Rev. 3:11 - "Behold, I come quickly!"
Rev. 22:6 - "...things which must shortly take place."
Rev. 22:7 - "Behold, I am coming quickly!"
Rev. 22:12 - "Behold, I am coming quickly."
Rev. 22:20 - "Surely I am coming quickly."

Note the significant fact that these phrases occur outisde the main body of the book, in which the actual historical events are deescribed. Nowhere do we find these events described with these words.

The Greek word “engus”, which means “near” or “at hand”. John is writing to the seven churches of Asia Minor to prepare them for some cataclysmic event, and this event was to take place very SOON, within a SHORT amount of time.

I agree - it would occur on the entire OIKOUMENH (not simply the land of Israel), and it hadn't happened yet (so it wasn't the persecution of either Nero or the Jews). So what was it?

Rev. 1:3 - "The time is near."
Rev. 22:10 - "The time is at hand."

The Greek word “mello”, which means “about to” or “on the verge of”.

Rev. 1:19 - "Write ... the things that are about to take place."
Rev. 3:10 - "... the hour of trial ... is about to come upon the whole world."

There are nearly a dozen verses in Revelation alone that directly suggest a very near catastrophe, not to mention dozens of indirect verses.

I agree that there was a very near catastrophe. It would occur on the entire OIKOUMENH (not simply the land of Israel), and it hadn't happened yet (so it wasn't the persecution of either Nero or the Jews). So what was it?

In addition, the contemporary expection is shown by the interpretation of the prophecies. For Ex.

Rev. 7:9-10
"The seven heads are (not “will be”) seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time."

I agree with this. I am of the understanding that the beast here is the contemporary Roman empire, under one of its forms of government. But there is nothing here which says that the next head would come very soon.

Finally, compare Rev. 14:14-20 with John the Baptist's warning to the Pharisees in Matthew 3:7-12. If that isn't enough to draw the parallel between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, consider the following.

Matthew 24:21-31
“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened. …“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

Revelation 7:13-14
“Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?” And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

How many “great tribulations” are there in the Bible? If John was speaking of another “great tribulation” different from the one in the Olivet Discourse, he failed to say so.

I agree - it would occur on the entire OIKOUMENH (not simply the land of Israel), and it hadn't happened yet (so it wasn't the persecution of either Nero or the Jews). So what was it?

Note also that the eschatological 'sun, moon and stars' imagery used in the Olivet prophecy actually speaks of events which take place subsequent to AD 70.

Luke 21:
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Those who are inside the city must depart. Those who are out in the country must not enter it,
22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people.
24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

That's AD 70. Note that this passage ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews into all nations (which occurred after AD 70), and then states that this time of exile would exist until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

But it is only after these times of the AD 70 exile that the eschatological events here occur:

Luke 21:
25 “And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth nations will be in distress, anxious over the roaring of the sea and the surging waves.
26 People will be fainting from fear and from the expectation of what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 Then they will see the Son of Man arriving in a cloud68 with power and great glory.
28 But when these things begin to happen, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

[Fortigurn]

Here is the big clincher, though by all means not the last of the evidence.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Revelation 11:1,2,8
"Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months... And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

At this point, we are dealing with more than just a similarity of language between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. We are dealing with identical themes, themes have we know have seen their historical fulfillment in 70 AD. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to show that there will be two great tribulations, and two occurances where the holy city (clearly earthly Jerusalem) will be trampled on by Gentiles for 42 months.

Firstly, neither of these two passages speak of a 'great tribulation'. They do share a common theme - tribulation on God's people - but there is nothing to indicate that they speak of the same event (exegeting from the common theme and common symbolism commits the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle).

Secondly, the contexts of these two passages are completely different. One is explicitly a warning of the destruction of Jerusalem to those who would experience the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other contains no reference to Israel or Jerusalem, and was sent to Christians who would not experience the destruction of Jerusalem.

Thirdly, you have already agreed with me that:

• Revelation takes symbols which in the Old Testament were used of Israel and the Jews, and applies them to the body of Christ and to the Christians

But here you take the symbols of the temple and the holy city in Revelation, and apply them not to the body of Christ and to the Christians, but to Israel and Jerusalem.

The fact is that the Revelation has already defined these terms for us. The holy city has been previously defined as the bride of Christ, the body of belivers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 21:
2 And I saw the holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb!”
10 So he took me away in the Spirit to a huge, majestic mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

Then there's the astonishing fact that you want to refer to 'the earthly Jerusalem' as both 'the holy city' and 'Sodom and Egypt'. It is not possible that the same city could be described in such completely opposing terms. This is noted very early by Paula and Eustochium (Letters of Jerome, Letter XLV, Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, paragraph 6, 386 AD).

The 'temple of God' likewise has been previously defined by Revelation as the body of believers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 7:
15 For this reason they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them.

See also Revelation 14:15-17; 15:5-6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22, in which the temple of God is described as a spiritual dwellingplace of God, not as the literal temple in Jerusalem.

Of course, I'm assuming that you accept the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD.

Not all of it, no.

In any case, I think the relationship between Revelation and the Olivet Discourse has been firmly established.

I need a response to my other criticisms of your identification of Revelation 6 as a reference to the Olivet prophecy.

[Fortigurn]

Well I did give a long list of quotes there.

Good, then it shouldn't be too hard to explain how any one of these shows that “that Revelation intends to give a warning and description of events which would come upon and endanger the Christian body during the whole time between the giving of the Revelation and the return of Christ”. I'll let you pick any one that you choose.

Well I did that already:

• Daniel 2: Four empires are shown here (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), each empire being taken over by a new empire, except for the last empire (Rome), which simply falls apart into strong and weak fragments. These fragments try to unite, trying to put the empire back together again, but to no success. What's the European Union doing today? It's trying to put that empire back together again.

• Daniel 7: Four beasts are shown here, which are said to be the four empires on earth. We need only to go to Daniel 2 to prove that these four beasts represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. In Daniel 7 we receive more information about the fourth empire.

We are shown that it is divided (the 10 horns show the empire is divided), and that shortly after the division of the empire (476 AD), a new horn springs up which supplants three others. This is a power which persecutes God's people for a certain time, dating from shortly after the fall of Rome.

But the beast is alive at the return of Christ, so it must exist in some form or other - a 'revived Roman empire' is the key here.

• Revelation 12: We see a dragon which looks like the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It is in fact the fourth beast of Daniel 7 - it is the Roman Empire. But it doesn't have the crowns on the horns yet, so it's the pagan Roman Empire prior to 476 AD, prior to the Roman Empire falling apart.

• Revelation 13: We see that the dragon gives over its power to a new beast, which looks almost exactly like the dragon, but which has the 10 horns, and also has a mouth which looks like the little horn of Daniel 7. So we see that the pagan Roman Empire gives way to another Roman empire which looks just like it, but which is different in some way - it has a leader who specifically blasphemes God and persecutes His people.

This leader springs up after the fall of the Roman Empire, which is described in Revelation 13 as a 'deadly wound' from which the beast is healed.

• Revelation 17: We see the same beast yet again, with 10 horns yet again, and the 10 horns represent the fact that kings of the earth are combining to give their power to the beast. In other words, they are combining to restore the empire of the beast - the beast of the sea in Revelation 13, which is the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which is the fourth empire of Daniel 2, which is the Roman Empire.

So we look for a united system of the kings of the earth which is attempting to combine to restore the Roman Empire. And we find that in the European Union.

Note also the location of certain events which are contained in Revelation, of which the servants of Christ are warned:

• The four corners of the earth
• The four winds of the earth
• The Lord of the earth (the passage from Zechariah in the LXX from which this is quoted specifies the Lord of the whole earth)
• The kings of the earth
• The tribes of the earth
• Those who live on the earth (who are also described as 'every nation, tribe, language, and people')

That's a lot more than Asia Minor.

True, they would also experience these things “shortly”, “near”, “quickly”, and “at hand” because they were “about to take place” in the First Century.

Some of them, not all of them.

Says who? (Actually, I agree that a very few toward the end are not, but most of them are).

Well I'll let your parenthesised statement answer you here. We agree that not everything can be understood to take place 'shortly', 'near', 'quickly', or 'at hand', we only differ on what those things are. This being the case, there's no argument to be made with these words really.

So what's the point of repeating the Olivet prophecy in the Revelation, as you say chapter 6 does?

To let them know that their tribulation would be for a short time, and that God would avenge them shortly.

Firstly, how would their tribulation end with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? They weren't being persecuted by the Jews in Jerusalem, were they? Are you arguing that their persecution by Nero and by the Jews in Asia Minor was somehow put to a stop by the destruction of Jerusalem? Christians continued to be persecuted by the Romans long after this time - even more severely than they had been under Nero. How long is this 'short time' of tribulation, if it's supposed to be over by AD 70?

Secondly, how would God be 'avenging them' by punishing the Jews in Jerusalem and Israel? Wouldn't it have been more relevant for Him to punish the Jews in Asia Minor?

Thirdly, where do Nero and the Roman empire fit into this? According to you, the Christians in Asia Minor were suffering from a widespread persecution of Christians by Nero. How did the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in AD 70 constitute vengeance on Nero and the Roman empire?

Which is why they needed to know about the destruction of Jerusalem?

They needed to know about the coming judgment upon their persecutors. This the main purpose of prophecy, to edify, exhort, and comfort (1 Cor. 14:2)

How is the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in AD 70 supposed to be 'coming judgment upon their persecutors'? They were being persecuted (according to you), by Jews in Asia Minor, and by Nero and the Roman empire.

From Revelation 2-3, we find only two churches suffering persecution (Smyrna and Pergamum). The others were subuding their enemies (Ephesus), permitting apostasy (Thyatira, though Pergamum was doing the same also), or succumbing to the temptations of the world and enjoying the easy life (Sardis and Laodicea). There is no evidence that they were all suffering widespread persecution from both Nero and the Jews.

You are kidding, correct? Did you ever hear about the great fire in Rome? Are you aware that all of the Apostles except for John died a martyr's death, mostly had the hand of either Jews or Romans? DO you know why John was on Patmos to begin with? Have you ever read the NT at all? How about John's own words to all seven churches in Rev. 1:9? “I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Sounds like persecution to me.

I am not discussing the persecution of Christians elsewhere in the empire. I am addressing your claim that the seven ecclesias were all undergoing widespread persecution by both Nero and the Jews in Asia Minor. When I read the letters in Revelation 2-3, I find no such thing.

In addition, Philadelphia is assured that they will be kept from the trial which is yet to come on the OIKOUMNEH. What trial was that? It couldn't have been Nero or the Jews (if they were already persecuting the Christians in Asia Minor), and it couldn't have been the fall of Jerusalem. So what was it?

Well, Christ certainly didn't promise to keep the first Century church of Philadelphia from the Spanish Inquisition. Why would they care about that? He promised to keep them from"... the hour of trial ... is about to (mello) come upon the whole world.

This doesn't actually answer my question. Philadelphia is assured that they will be kept from the trial which is yet to come on the OIKOUMNEH. What trial was that? It couldn't have been Nero or the Jews (if they were already persecuting the Christians in Asia Minor), and it couldn't have been the fall of Jerusalem. So what was it?

How many martyrs can you find in Revelation 2-3? I can find one - 'Antipas'.

Ever hear of Peter, Paul, James?

As far as I know, none of them belonged to the ecclesias in Asia Minor. Nor are they referred to here in Revelation 2-3. I am addressing your argument that the Christians in Asia Minor were being martyred by Nero and the Jews in Asia Minor. I don't see evidence of any more than a single martyr here in the letters to the ecclesias in Asia Minor.

How about the church at Smyrna?

Rev. 2:9-10
“I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

How about it? I did mention them as suffering persecution (along with Pergamum). My point was that this was one of only two ecclesias which are said to be suffering persecution at this time.

So how about the tribulation of Smyrna. What trial was that? It couldn't have been Nero or the Jews (if they were already persecuting the Christians in Asia Minor), and it couldn't have been the fall of Jerusalem. So what was it? Why is it described as taking place for 10 days, and why are none of the other ecclesias warned about it?

That's a bit hard to prove, given that the 'main enemy' is the beast, and the beast you acknowledge as Rome.

Not hardly. The main enemy was “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS” who was “drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” (Rev. 17:5-6). The beast, while certainly an enemy, is more of an afterthought, though he was judged as well.

The beast is an 'afterthought'? He's mentioned constantly in Revelation chapters 11-13, 16-17, and 19. The whore doesn't even appear until Revelation 17, and is mentioned again in Revelation 18-19:3, and that's it. But apparently the whore is 'the main enemy', and the beast is 'more of an afterthought'?

Who else would claim to be a “Jew” except someone who was a Jew? It wasn't like Jews were the most loved people on the planet? Maybe you can give some insight on who you think these false Jews are.

The problem with them being Jews is that if they are Jews then they are not lying when they claim to be Jews. I think a stronger case can be made that they are Christians falsely claiming to be of the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29), without actually being in the covenant of Christ.

I am not interpreting it as the entire planet. I am interpreting it as the Roman empire.

Good. Me too, although the main focus was on the “harlot”, those who dwell upon the land.

I don't see how you can interpret 'those who dwell on the earth' as 'those who dwell upon the land [of Israel]', given that 'those who dwell on the earth' are defined in Revelation as 'every nation, tribe, language, and people'.

I also don't see how the harlot can be Jerusalem, since the harlot is a city which sits on seven hills (unlike Jerusalem), and which 'reigns over the kings of the earth' (which Jerusalem certainly didn't).

I don't completely disagree, and the Romans were also judged because of this (Nero's suicide and the Roman Civil War.)

Are these judgments recorded in Revelation?

Yes. Rev. 13:3,9. I've already expounded this for you elsewhere in this debate.

That's it for the judgment on Rome? Can I get a chronology of the events in Revelation please? I need to know when you think different chapters take place.

As for judgment on Rome, you gave me this:

• Daniel 2: Four empires are shown here (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), each empire being taken over by a new empire, except for the last empire (Rome), which simply falls apart into strong and weak fragments. These fragments try to unite, trying to put the empire back together again, but to no success. What's the European Union doing today? It's trying to put that empire back together again.

Already Happened. It was called the Roman Civil War. The Empire nearly crumbled after Nero's suicide and was ruled by a series of usurpers beginning with the Spaniard Galba. It was finally revived under Vespasian. The Beast was resurrected.

My reply was:

Could you possibly find any historian who believes that the Roman empire disintegrated in the 1st century, and was restored by Vespasian?

You gave me this:

Could you possibly find any historian who believes that the Roman empire disintegrated in the 1st century, and was restored by Vespasian?

(Tacitus, Histories 1:2-3.)

(Josephus, Wars 4:9:2 and 4:10:2)

(Josephus, Wars 4:11:5)

I responded:

I note that none of these historians say that the Roman empire disintegrated in the 1st century, and was restored by Vespasian. The generally accepted date for the disintegration of Rome is about 476 AD. The usually accepted era of its restoration is the reign of Justinian (6th century).

I think this part of your argument needs more work.

'...from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.'

That particular indictment hardly extends into the Christian era, does it?

Doesn't it.

No it doesn't. I'm not sure when Zechariah the son of Berachiah died, but I'm fairly certain it was before the Christian era.

How about Christ (the son of the owner of the vineyard in Matthew 21)? How about James, Steven and Paul?

Matthew 23:34-36
"Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

I think you'll have real difficulty fitting the death of Christ, James, Steven and Paul in between the death of Abel and Zechariah the son of Berachiah.

[puritan lad]

Firstly, there is no 'great earthquake' in the Olivet prophecy (still less in Matthew 24:7). There are 'earthquakes [plural] in divers places', but no eschatological earthquake as we have in Revelation 6.

An earthquake is an earthquake, and I've shown that these happened in the First Century.

Secondly, Matthew makes it utterly clear that these 'earthquakes in divers places' are not eschatological events ('the end is still to come', Matthew 24:6).

The "end" didn't happen after the great earthquake either.

Thirdly, the earthquake in Revelation 6 is clearly part of the apocalyptic imagery of the passage, and it is therefore invalid for you to attempt to read it as literal. Not only are you reading a symbolic earthquake as literal, you are reading it as more than one earthquake.

Come now. While the earthquakes are symbolic, they could also be literal (just like the symbolic 42 months which was also literal). We know that earthquakes did take place leading up to 70 AD.

Whether or not 'the apocalyptic language used in the NT such as this is almost used exclusively to describe 70 AD' is irrelevant. The fact is that it is used elsewhere of other nations. It is clear that Revelation 6 draws from many passages outside the Olivet prophecy, and that it contains imagery which is found nowhere in the Olivet prophecy, but which is found in the judgment prophesies pronounced against Gentile nations in the Old Testament.

The apocalyptic language is never tied to any one nation. For example, the Bible describes a "cloud judgment" many times, and while the meaning is the same, it happens to many nations such as Egypt (Isaiah 19:1), Assyria (Nahum 1:3), and in the NT, Jerusalem.

1.) Audience Relevance: Historicism makes the prophecy totally useless and irrelevant to the original audience, the first century churches of Asia Minor. It was they who were told to read, hear, and keep the words of this prophecy (Rev. 1:3). It was they who were told to calculate the number of the beast (13:18). If, as you claim, “Revelation intends to give a warning and description of events which would come upon and endanger the Christian body during the whole time between the giving of the Revelation and the return of Christ”, then this becomes an impossibility.

Secondly, the fact that the Revelation contains a prophecy of events beyond their lifetime does not preculde their being able to keep the words of the prophecy.

You mean "the theory that the Revelation contains a prophecy of events beyond their lifetime, a theory which has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Thirdly, the 1st century Christian community was multi-generational in any case, which means that some of those who received the book would undoubtedly die before AD 70. Does this mean that the book was not relevant to them?

Come now Fortigurn. This is theological desperation. Revelation clearly warns that some of them would die. "Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." (Rev. 2:10). So yes, the book was relevant for them.

Fourthly, I need to know exactly which parts of the book you believe terminate in AD 70, and which describe events past this date. Thanks.

I hold that we are currently in the millennial reign, so everything before chapter 20 has been fulfilled.

2.) Contemporary Expectatation: A First Century Christian, reading this letter, would have never viewed Revelation from a historicist perspective. Time and again Revelation uses time frame references that point to imminent events, events that were about to break upon the world in the First Century.

Firstly, although we find no conclusive references to the Revelation in 1st century Christian texts (it appears explicitly first in Justin Martyr, mid-2nd century), a fact which itself argues for a late date for the writing of the book, we do find that from the 2nd century onward (when expositions of the book do start to appear), it is the Historicist perspective with which the Revelation is understood (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, 180-200 AD).

Both presumptuous and irrelevant. We have very few Christian writings in the First Century period (outside the Bible itself). We have Peter referring to the promise of "new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13). We have the writer of Hebrews referring to the "heavenly Jerusalem" (Hebrews 12:22). We have the Shepherd of Hermas (most likely before 85 AD) which certainly borrows symbols from Revelation. I've made the argument for the early date here - http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... ght=#17474. We have John's own words that the temple was still standing in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1,2) and the the 6th Roman Emperor (Nero) was on the throne (Rev. 17:10).

We have no Christian writings from the 1st to the 10th century which indicate a Praeterist understanding of the book (even though some events were considered to be references to 1st century events). In fact a systematic Praterism does not occur in Christian exposition of Revelation untli the early 17th century (Luis de Alcazar, 1554-1613). Why is this?

Wrong. Try Augustine's "City of God". There is also preterist statements in first centiry writings by Clement of Alexandria and statements by James at his martyrdom recorded by Eusebius.

This being the case, it is speculative to suggest that the 1st century Christians would never have understood Revelation from a Historicist perspective. Certainly the 1st century Jewish writers (such as Josephus, Rabbi Joseph, and Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai), had no concept of the eschatological events of Daniel 2 and 7 occurring in the 1st century.

Which is why they failed to flee Jerusalem like the Christians did, who did understand this (Luke 21:20-24).

[Secondly, Revelation draws on Daniel (especially Daniel 7), the events of which cannot be compressed into the 1st century.

Says who?

An adverb of speed does not necessarily indicate a short duration of time. I can say that something will happen 'quickly' without saying that it will happen 'soon'.

All through the Revelation the emphasis with regard to Christ's coming is placed on its speed and suddenness, with the connotation that it will come unexpectedly and with a haste which will preclude remedial action in one's life...Note the significant fact that these phrases occur outisde the main body of the book, in which the actual historical events are deescribed. Nowhere do we find these events described with these words....it would occur on the entire OIKOUMENH (not simply the land of Israel), and it hadn't happened yet (so it wasn't the persecution of either Nero or the Jews). So what was it?

I've already answered this. Revelation is a record of judgment on the harlot (Israel) and the Beast (Rome). It did occur throughout the Roman Empire, but the main focus was Jerusalem.

Aside from this, I have over a dozen clearly stated time frame references supporting an imminent fulfillment. You have provided any evidence whatsoever to support your statement that "Revelation intends to give a warning and description of events which would come upon and endanger the Christian body during the whole time between the giving of the Revelation and the return of Christ."

Rev. 7:9-10
"The seven heads are (not “will be”) seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time."

I agree with this. I am of the understanding that the beast here is the contemporary Roman empire, under one of its forms of government. But there is nothing here which says that the next head would come very soon.

Fortigurn, the Roman Empire is gone. There is nothing to suggest that it will ever return.

Finally, compare Rev. 14:14-20 with John the Baptist's warning to the Pharisees in Matthew 3:7-12. If that isn't enough to draw the parallel between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, consider the following.

How many “great tribulations” are there in the Bible? If John was speaking of another “great tribulation” different from the one in the Olivet Discourse, he failed to say so.

I agree - it would occur on the entire OIKOUMENH (not simply the land of Israel), and it hadn't happened yet (so it wasn't the persecution of either Nero or the Jews). So what was it?]

For now, do you agree that the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are one and the same?

[puritan lad]

I cut out some quotes to save space, as well as issues that I've already answered.

1.) There is nothing in Daniel to support your statement that “the beast is alive at the return of Christ, so it must exist in some form or other - a 'revived Roman empire' is the key here.” Daniel 7 shows four beasts, which we agree are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. All of these have come and gone.

2.) You need to understand the importance of the temple to Jews, regardless of where they live. The events of 70 AD were devastating, as “their house was left desolate”. Rome was judged by a revolt against Nero (who committed suicide). Rome was a shambles for 2 years until Vespasian “resurrected” the beast.

3.) Nero, in order to save his own skin after the great fire in 64 AD, launched an all out war on the saints. No church was excluded from this, although some were obviously more affected than others.

4.) Philadelphia was kept from both trials, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Roman Civil War both had minimum if any affect. This is why all Christians were warned not to go to Jerusalem when they saw it surrounded by armies.

5.) I've already identified the many martyrs in the First Century Churches of Asia.

6.) The persecution in Smyrna was by Jews (Rev. 2:9).

7.)

The problem with them being Jews is that if they are Jews then they are not lying when they claim to be Jews. I think a stronger case can be made that they are Christians falsely claiming to be of the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29), without actually being in the covenant of Christ.

Whoa! This needs to be addressed. What do you think of Paul? Was he lying when he says that “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ.” (Gal. 3:16). How about “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:29). This identifies the true “Jew”, a Christian. All others “lie” and “are of the synagogue of Satan”. Do really believe that Christians are not in Covenant with God? Hope you don't partake of the Lord's Supper.

8.)

I also don't see how the harlot can be Jerusalem, since the harlot is a city which sits on seven hills (unlike Jerusalem), and which 'reigns over the kings of the earth' (which Jerusalem certainly didn't).

Actually, Jerusalem does sit on 7 hills, although that isn't the reference here. Jerusalem gets it power to persecute Christians from Rome, which is clearly outlined throughout the NT. For the case the Jerusalem is the great harlot, see http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... ght=#17146

9.)

That's it for the judgment on Rome? Can I get a chronology of the events in Revelation please? I need to know when you think different chapters take place.

I'll work on it. The posts in this thread are already long enough.

10.)

I think you'll have real difficulty fitting the death of Christ, James, Steven and Paul in between the death of Abel and Zechariah the son of Berachiah.

You're really missing the point. Jerusalem was already guilty of the death of Abel and Zechariah, and all the righteous blood shed upon the earth. This is pointed out in Matthew 23:35. This passage also says that they would also persecute “prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify,”, etc. This is where Christ, James, etc. come in.

[Fortigurn]

Firstly, there is no 'great earthquake' in the Olivet prophecy (still less in Matthew 24:7). There are 'earthquakes [plural] in divers places', but no eschatological earthquake as we have in Revelation 6.

An earthquake is an earthquake, and I've shown that these happened in the First Century.

An earthquake is an earthquake, not 'divers earthquakes'. And you're still not addressing the point that this is apocalyptic language.

Secondly, Matthew makes it utterly clear that these 'earthquakes in divers places' are not eschatological events ('the end is still to come', Matthew 24:6).

The "end" didn't happen after the great earthquake either.

Really? Interesting. So what is the great earthquake here, if it isn't an eschatological event?

But the point remains - the 'divers earthquakes' to which you refer don't occur in the eschatological section of the Olivet prophecy. You have already mapped the eschatological section of the Olivet prophecy (with is 'sun, moon and stars' imagery), to the eschatological section of Revelation 6:12-14.

This being the case, you cannot claim that the 'great earthquake' of this eschatological section maps to the earlier literal events of the Olivet prophecy, concerning which we are told explicitly 'the end is still to come' (Matthew 24:6). You can't have it both ways.

Thirdly, the earthquake in Revelation 6 is clearly part of the apocalyptic imagery of the passage, and it is therefore invalid for you to attempt to read it as literal. Not only are you reading a symbolic earthquake as literal, you are reading it as more than one earthquake.

Come now. While the earthquakes are symbolic, they could also be literal (just like the symbolic 42 months which was also literal). We know that earthquakes did take place leading up to 70 AD.

I'm sorry, but I can't let you go on this one. The entire passage uses apocalyptic symbolism which is borrowed straight from the Old Testament. The sun and moon darkening is symbolic. The stars falling is symbolic. The removal of the mountains and islands from their places is symbolic.

Yet you want to tell me that the earthquake is not only literal, but actually represents several earthquakes over several years, which did not take place at the eschaton?

The apocalyptic language is never tied to any one nation. For example, the Bible describes a "cloud judgment" many times, and while the meaning is the same, it happens to many nations such as Egypt (Isaiah 19:1), Assyria (Nahum 1:3), and in the NT, Jerusalem.

Yes, I agree entirely. This is precisely why I have a problem with the use of the undistributed middle to associate this imagery in Revelation with Israel.

Thirdly, the 1st century Christian community was multi-generational in any case, which means that some of those who received the book would undoubtedly die before AD 70. Does this mean that the book was not relevant to them?

Come now Fortigurn. This is theological desperation. Revelation clearly warns that some of them would die. "Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." (Rev. 2:10). So yes, the book was relevant for them.

It is not 'theological desparation'. I agree entirely that some of them would die - I just said that myself. I am pointing out that since the book contains a warning of events which would fall on the 1st century Christians, it is completely relevant to them. Remember, I'm not a Futurist.

Fourthly, I need to know exactly which parts of the book you believe terminate in AD 70, and which describe events past this date. Thanks.

I hold that we are currently in the millennial reign, so everything before chapter 20 has been fulfilled.

Thanks, that helps a lot.

2.) Contemporary Expectatation: A First Century Christian, reading this letter, would have never viewed Revelation from a historicist perspective. Time and again Revelation uses time frame references that point to imminent events, events that were about to break upon the world in the First Century.

Firstly, although we find no conclusive references to the Revelation in 1st century Christian texts (it appears explicitly first in Justin Martyr, mid-2nd century), a fact which itself argues for a late date for the writing of the book, we do find that from the 2nd century onward (when expositions of the book do start to appear), it is the Historicist perspective with which the Revelation is understood (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, 180-200 AD).

Both presumptuous and irrelevant. We have very few Christian writings in the First Century period (outside the Bible itself).

I don't see how this is 'presumptuous and irrelevant'. We have a very significant Chrisitan witness in the Didache, which contains a systematic eschatology which includes quotes taken from the Olivet prophecy, from 1 Thessalonians 3, 2 Thessalonians 2, and 1 Corinthians 15. There is no reference to Revelation at all, a fact incredible if this work was produced prior to AD 70, and was contemporary with the book. Likewise, the eschatology of the Didache refers to the 'last days' as being yet future, not present, so a 1st century eschaton is not under view here (various of the apostles referred to eschatological 'last days' which were contemporary with them, but for the Didache the eschaton of the 'last days' is still future).

In addition, of the various apocryphal works which are considered to be early 2nd century (or mid to late 1st century), none of them refer to Revelation. Let's take a look:

* Gospel of Thomas
* 1 Clement
* Christian Sybillines
* Apocalypse of Peter
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs

Several of these deal with eschatological themes. Significantly, none of them refer to Revelation. There is a general consensus that they are all early 2nd century works,but even if I were to be generous and let you put them back into the pre AD 70 era (along with Hermas), it still wouldn't help you at all. The fact is that the first references to Revelation occur in Christian literature shortly after the beginning of the 2nd century, which is precisely where we would expect to see them if the book was written near the end of the 1st century.

Even works such as the Christian Sybillines, the Didache, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (all of which certainly have 1st century material, and all of which deal with eschatology), make no reference to Revelation at all.

But there's more. All of the extra-Biblical works we have from the 1st or 2nd century which deal with eschatology, present the eschaton as still future (including Hermas). What do you suppose is the earliest Christian work which declares the eschaton to be past? I'd like your view on this please.

We have Peter referring to the promise of "new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13). We have the writer of Hebrews referring to the "heavenly Jerusalem" (Hebrews 12:22).

Are these supposed to be quotes from Revelation? Is that it?

We have the Shepherd of Hermas (most likely before 85 AD) which certainly borrows symbols from Revelation.

Firstly, I know of no authoratative scholarship which places Hermas 'most likely before 85 AD'). The consensus I have seen among respected scholarship is that it is a composite document commenced perhaps at the end of the 1st century, but most likely between 100 and 160 AD.

Secondly, I need to see which symbols in Hermas are demonstrably borrowed from Revelation (the beast, for example, looks nothing like anything in Revelation).

I've made the argument for the early date here - http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... ght=#17474. We have John's own words that the temple was still standing in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1,2) and the the 6th Roman Emperor (Nero) was on the throne (Rev. 17:10).

I don't really care what the date is (my interpretation doesn't require a certain date, as yours does), but I do think that the evidence is stronger for a late date.

We have no Christian writings from the 1st to the 10th century which indicate a Praeterist understanding of the book (even though some events were considered to be references to 1st century events). In fact a systematic Praterism does not occur in Christian exposition of Revelation untli the early 17th century (Luis de Alcazar, 1554-1613). Why is this?

Wrong. Try Augustine's "City of God". There is also preterist statements in first centiry writings by Clement of Alexandria and statements by James at his martyrdom recorded by Eusebius.[/quote]

I'm afraid that Amillenialism is not Futurism. You're really reading too much into Augustine's Amillennial position. Augustine actually took a Historicist view of Daniel 2 and 7, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation. I would like to see the 'preterist statements' by Clement and James (as recorded by Eusebius), but I think that you and I both know 'preterst statements' do not constitute 'systematic Praterism'. You'll probably find me a few bits and pieces such as a Praeterist view of the Olivet prophecy, but that's it. Hey, surprise me.

This being the case, it is speculative to suggest that the 1st century Christians would never have understood Revelation from a Historicist perspective. Certainly the 1st century Jewish writers (such as Josephus, Rabbi Joseph, and Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai), had no concept of the eschatological events of Daniel 2 and 7 occurring in the 1st century.

Which is why they failed to flee Jerusalem like the Christians did, who did understand this (Luke 21:20-24).[/quote]

Well there's actually no evidence that these Jews failed to flee Jerusalem like the Christians did, on the basis of their misunderstanding of Daniel. Josephus stayed for reasons of patriotism, not eschatology. He writes specifically that he understood Daniel to be prophesying that the Romans would come and destroy Jerusalem and Israel, so it's not as if he was uninformed.

[Secondly, Revelation draws on Daniel (especially Daniel 7), the events of which cannot be compressed into the 1st century.

Says who?

You have to deal with the problem of the fourth beast being Rome, and yet being destroyed at the return of Christ. Actually destroyed.

An adverb of speed does not necessarily indicate a short duration of time. I can say that something will happen 'quickly' without saying that it will happen 'soon'.

All through the Revelation the emphasis with regard to Christ's coming is placed on its speed and suddenness, with the connotation that it will come unexpectedly and with a haste which will preclude remedial action in one's life...Note the significant fact that these phrases occur outisde the main body of the book, in which the actual historical events are deescribed. Nowhere do we find these events described with these words....it would occur on the entire OIKOUMENH (not simply the land of Israel), and it hadn't happened yet (so it wasn't the persecution of either Nero or the Jews). So what was it?

I've already answered this. Revelation is a record of judgment on the harlot (Israel) and the Beast (Rome). It did occur throughout the Roman Empire, but the main focus was Jerusalem.[/quote]

So wait a minute, the 'great tribulation' was in fact 'judgment on the harlot (Israel) and the Beast (Rome)'? That's supposed to be the 'great tribulation'? The vengeance of God on the enemies of His people? How was that a 'great tribulation' for them? You're claiming that the event which was their 'great tribulation' was also the same event which was their salvation and redemption from persecution? How does that work?

You haven't explained yet how the destruction of Jerusalem was at all relevant to the Christians in Asia Minor. Nor have you presented any historical sources to support your claim that the Roman empire fell apart in the 1st century and was restored by Vespasian.

Aside from this, I have over a dozen clearly stated time frame references supporting an imminent fulfillment.

I've dealt with this. An adverb of speed does not necessarily indicate a short duration of time. I can say that something will happen 'quickly' without saying that it will happen 'soon'.

All through the Revelation the emphasis with regard to Christ's coming is placed on its speed and suddenness, with the connotation that it will come unexpectedly and with a haste which will preclude remedial action in one's life. Note the significant fact that these phrases occur outisde the main body of the book, in which the actual historical events are deescribed. Nowhere do we find these events described with these words.

Since you agree with me that there are events in Revelation which do not occur 'soon' (proximate to the 1st century), the only contention between us is which of them do or don't.

You have provided any evidence whatsoever to support your statement that "Revelation intends to give a warning and description of events which would come upon and endanger the Christian body during the whole time between the giving of the Revelation and the return of Christ."

I have provided several quotes from Daniel and Revelation, and interpreted them in a way with which you disagree, but which you have not yet formally addressed.

Fortigurn, the Roman Empire is gone. There is nothing to suggest that it will ever return.

Saying this does not deal with the fact that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is said to be present at the return of Christ, to be destroyed by him.

Finally, compare Rev. 14:14-20 with John the Baptist's warning to the Pharisees in Matthew 3:7-12. If that isn't enough to draw the parallel between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, consider the following.

How many “great tribulations” are there in the Bible? If John was speaking of another “great tribulation” different from the one in the Olivet Discourse, he failed to say so.

I agree - it would occur on the entire OIKOUMENH (not simply the land of Israel), and it hadn't happened yet (so it wasn't the persecution of either Nero or the Jews). So what was it?]

For now, do you agree that the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are one and the same?

[/quote]

No I don't, I can't possibly. The only argument you've made for such a case has been from Revelation 6, on the basis of the similarity of apocalyptic language. You have not dealt with the context of the first three chapters of the book, you have acknowledged that the apocalyptic language alone is inadequate to identify Israel's destruction in Revelation 6, and you have not even interpreted the apocalpytic language consistently.

[Fortigurn]

I cut out some quotes to save space, as well as issues that I've already answered.

1.) There is nothing in Daniel to support your statement that “the beast is alive at the return of Christ, so it must exist in some form or other - a 'revived Roman empire' is the key here.”

Here:

Daniel 7:

8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

The beast is clearly present at the eschatological judgment conducted by Christ at his return.

Here's the same picture in Revelation:

Revelation 19:

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Next up, we have the judgment:

Revelation 20:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Quite clear.

2.) You need to understand the importance of the temple to Jews, regardless of where they live.

Historical testimony would help. Are you going to suggest that the earthly Jerusalem was of grat significance to 1st century Christians?

The events of 70 AD were devastating, as “their house was left desolate”.

I agree.

Rome was judged by a revolt against Nero (who committed suicide).

That's it? That's the judgment of Rome? It's a bit weak.

Rome was a shambles for 2 years until Vespasian “resurrected” the beast.

I need to see credible historical commentary that the empire fell in the 1st century, and that Vespasian was responsible for 'resurrecting' it. All you' giving me here is a brief power struggle which didn't last a year.

3.) Nero, in order to save his own skin after the great fire in 64 AD, launched an all out war on the saints.No church was excluded from this, although some were obviously more affected than others.

I need historical evidence which shows the scope and severity of this persecution please (the letters to the seven ecclesias show that they seemed not to be experiencing it).

4.) Philadelphia was kept from both trials, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Roman Civil War both had minimum if any affect.

Well come on PL, every single ecclesia in Asia Minorr was 'kept' from the destruction of Jerusalem, which didn't affect them at all - it was hundreds of miles away.

As for the 'Roman Civil War', I need you to provide historical evidence as to exactly who it affected, and how.

This is why all Christians were warned not to go to Jerusalem when they saw it surrounded by armies.

They were actually warned to get out, rather than 'not go'. There is no warning to any of the seven ecclesias 'not to go' to Jerusalem.

5.) I've already identified the many martyrs in the First Century Churches of Asia.

You mentioned Peter, James, and John. None of these belonged to ecclesias in Asia Minor.

6.) The persecution in Smyrna was by Jews (Rev. 2:9).

Even if I grant you this, why aren't the others described as suffering the same persecution?

[Fortigurn]

7.)

The problem with them being Jews is that if they are Jews then they are not lying when they claim to be Jews. I think a stronger case can be made that they are Christians falsely claiming to be of the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29), without actually being in the coveant of Christ.

Whoa! This needs to be addressed. What do you think of Paul?

I think Paul was great!

Was he lying when he says that “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ.” (Gal. 3:16).

Nope, no lies there.

How about “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:29).

Fine with me. This is about Gentiles being grafted into the promises to Israel, remember.

This identifies the true “Jew”, a Christian.

No, it identifies Gentile Christians as the seed of Abraham, through their incorporation into the promises made to the fathers. It says nothing about physical Jews.

All others “lie” and “are of the synagogue of Satan”.

Those who claim to be in the covenant and are not, are liars.

You seem to think that any Jew calling themselves a Jew after the time of the crucifixion is a liar. But Paul referred to himself as a physical Jew, and even referred to unbelieving Jews as his brethren. What's the issue?

Do really believe that Christians are not in Covenant with God?

No, I never said such a thing.

Hope you don't partake of the Lord's Supper.

I'm glad I do.

8.)

I also don't see how the harlot can be Jerusalem, since the harlot is a city which sits on seven hills (unlike Jerusalem), and which 'reigns over the kings of the earth' (which Jerusalem certainly didn't).

Actually, Jerusalem does sit on 7 hills, although that isn't the reference here.

If Jerusalem didn't sit on 7 hills in the 1st century, then the reference isn't to Jerusalem. So what does it mean?

Jerusalem gets it power to persecute Christians from Rome, which is clearly outlined throughout the NT.

I think you need to walk me through this. I know James was killed by the Romans to please the Jews, but that's all I can think of at hand.

For the case the Jerusalem is the great harlot, see

New thread coming up.

9.)

That's it for the judgment on Rome? Can I get a chronology of the events in Revelation please? I need to know when you think different chapters take place.

I'll work on it. The posts in this thread are already long enough.

No rush, it would just help me understand your argument better.

10.)

I think you'll have real difficulty fitting the death of Christ, James, Steven and Paul in between the death of Abel and Zechariah the son of Berachiah.

You're really missing the point. Jerusalem was already guilty of the death of Abel and Zechariah, and all the righteous blood shed upon the earth. This is pointed out in Matthew 23:35. This passage also says that they would also persecute “prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify,”, etc. This is where Christ, James, etc. come in.

The 'Abel to Zechariah' passage says that Jerusalem is to be punished for her persecution of prophets sent by God up to tte time of Zechariah son of Berechiah. I see no reference here to punishment for persecutions which had not yet occurred.

[puritan lad]

We are clearly getting off topic here in this thread, but I'll answer these and move on.

The beast is clearly present at the eschatological judgment conducted by Christ at his return.

Already happened in 70 AD. This is more accurately a prophecy concerning Christ's First Advent, not His Second. Christ's “everlasting kingdom” (Daniel 7:14) is his church, which came during the 4th Beast, which you admit is the Roman Empire. The kingdoms of this earth were destroyed during Christ ministry. The coming of His kingdom will not be some cataclysmic event, but it is already here, within you, and will grow like the stone, like leaven, until it fills the whole world.

The Roman Empire is History. It no longer exists. The Fourth Beast is certainly Rome (See Chapter 2) - Vespasian was the 10th Roman king and the king who was ruling at the time of Jerusalem's fall (70 AD). He followed the three kings of the Roman Civil War, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, (Daniel 7:24).

He (the beast itself) persecuted the saints under Nero "for a time and times and half a time". (64-68 AD). His end came by suicide after the Roman Senate voted to put him to death.

That's it? That's the judgment of Rome? It's a bit weak.

Unless you were one of the many killed, or suffered from the resulting famines, etc. If you were a Caesar-worshipper, you had to accept that the Caesar family line was killed off after Nero.

They were actually warned to get out, rather than 'not go'. There is no warning to any of the seven ecclesias 'not to go' to Jerusalem.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.”

Revelation 18:4
"And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

OK, I know that the churches of Asia were not "in the country". The point is to stay out of Jerusalem.

why aren't the others (churches) described as suffering the same persecution?

Rev. 1:4, 9
“John, to the seven churches which are in Asia… I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation”

The Seven Churches were in tribulation, along with John.

What's the issue (concerning physical Jews)?

The issue is the exaltation of Christ-rejecting Jews as covenant people of God based on their race. This is not supported by scripture in either Testament. God has one chosen people, Christians (both Jew and Gentile). Those who reject Christ are NOT Abraham's children, but are of their father the Devil (John 8:37-44).

If Jerusalem didn't sit on 7 hills in the 1st century, then the reference isn't to Jerusalem. So what does it mean?

It did sit on 7 hills in the first century, but the reference is that Jerusalem was riding the Beast (Rome) in it's persecution of Christians. Over and over again, we see the Jews relying on the power of Caesar to persecute Christ and His followers. (Matthew 22:17, Luke 23:2, John 18:31, John 19:12-15, Acts 17:7, Acts 25:7-9). James was actually killed by Herod Agrippa, who had a close relationship with the Caesars.

In any case, we are getting way off the subject of this thread, “Is Revelation John's version of the Olivet Discourse?” We see very similar apocalyptic language, time frame references (shortly, quickly, near, this generation), and identical themes; the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21, Rev. 7:14) and the trampling underfoot of Jerusalem by the gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev 11:1,2). This firmly establishes the relationship between the two. In order to refute this, you will need to show evidence of two great tribulations and two occasions of the trampling underfoot of Jerusalem by the gentiles (NT period). Inevitably, we will have to deal with Matthew 24:34. I think you know this, which is why you are desperately trying to keep Revelation and the Olivet Discourse separate.

[puritan lad]

The 'Abel to Zechariah' passage says that Jerusalem is to be punished for her persecution of prophets sent by God up to tte time of Zechariah son of Berechiah. I see no reference here to punishment for persecutions which had not yet occurred.

Let's try one more time, with a red highlight.

Matthew 23:34-36
"Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will (in the future) kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

[Fortigurn]

We are clearly getting off topic here in this thread, but I'll answer these and move on.

The beast is clearly present at the eschatological judgment conducted by Christ at his return.

Already happened in 70 AD. This is more accurately a prophecy concerning Christ's First Advent, not His Second. Christ's “everlasting kingdom” (Daniel 7:14) is his church, which came during the 4th Beast, which you admit is the Roman Empire.

That's quite an astonishing achievement, given that the Roman empire is supposed to be totally destroyed in Daniel 7, but wasn't totally destroyed in the 1st century.

The kingdoms of this earth were destroyed during Christ ministry.

Could you pinpoint the fall of the Roman empire during Christ's ministry? I'm also interested in the passage from Revelation 19, which does not appear to have taken place during Christ's ministry.

The coming of His kingdom will not be some cataclysmic event, but it is already here, within you, and will grow like the stone, like leaven, until it fills the whole world.

Well that's not quite what the Bible says.

The Roman Empire is History. It no longer exists. The Fourth Beast is certainly Rome (See Chapter 2)

Yes, I agree.

Vespasian was the 10th Roman king and the king who was ruling at the time of Jerusalem's fall (70 AD). He followed the three kings of the Roman Civil War, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, (Daniel 7:24).

Ok, first up - how are you counting Vespasian as the 10th? Secondly, in what way did he supplant Galba, Otho and Vitellius, especially since none of them were alive by the time he came to power?

He (the beast itself) persecuted the saints under Nero "for a time and times and half a time". (64-68 AD). His end came by suicide after the Roman Senate voted to put him to death.

That's it? That's the judgment of Rome? It's a bit weak.

Unless you were one of the many killed, or suffered from the resulting famines, etc.

Wait a minute, what judgment is this? What famines and death?

If you were a Caesar-worshipper, you had to accept that the Caesar family line was killed off after Nero.

But not the Roman empire. Nor could Christians claim that their persecutor had been overcome, because the Roman persecution of the Christians only intensified in its savagery over the next centuries.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.”

Revelation 18:4
"And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

OK, I know that the churches of Asia were not "in the country". The point is to stay out of Jerusalem.

This is not exactly a warning which the ecclesias in Asia Minor need to hear, is it? The warning of Revelation 18:4 is, of course, taken from a prophecy in the Old Testament regarding Babylon. I have real difficulty understanding how it could be relevant to the ecclesias in Asia Minor as a warning to stay out of Jerusalem. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to stay out of Asia Minor?

why aren't the others (churches) described as suffering the same persecution?

Rev. 1:4, 9
“John, to the seven churches which are in Asia… I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation”

The Seven Churches were in tribulation, along with John.

Let's see:

Revelation 1:
9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus.

I see no particular and specific perseuction there.

What's the issue (concerning physical Jews)?

The issue is the exaltation of Christ-rejecting Jews as covenant people of God based on their race. This is not supported by scripture in either Testament. God has one chosen people, Christians (both Jew and Gentile). Those who reject Christ are NOT Abraham's children, but are of their father the Devil (John 8:37-44).

Could you work Romans 11:28 in there somewhere?

If Jerusalem didn't sit on 7 hills in the 1st century, then the reference isn't to Jerusalem. So what does it mean?

It did sit on 7 hills in the first century, but the reference is that Jerusalem was riding the Beast (Rome) in it's persecution of Christians.

Ok, I need all the historical evidence you can provide that Jerusalem sat on seven hills in the 1st century. By the way, the rider of an animal is the one in control. In what way did the Jews control the Roman empire?

Over and over again, we see the Jews relying on the power of Caesar to persecute Christ and His followers. (Matthew 22:17, Luke 23:2, John 18:31, John 19:12-15, Acts 17:7, Acts 25:7-9). James was actually killed by Herod Agrippa, who had a close relationship with the Caesars.

I note with interest that this long list of quotes (once examined closely), consists of multiple references to Christ's persecution and death, one reference to the Jews bringing Christians before the city officials (who don't give the Jews power to do anything, but release the Christians on bail), and - most incredibly - an entire chapter describing how the Jews were desparately trying to get the Roman authorities to persecute Paul, but the Roman authorities simply weren't cooperating, and were intending to let him go (except that they couldn't once he appealed to Caesar).

Your sole Christian martyr killed by the Romans to please the Jews is James, and that hardly constitutes the Jews receiving power from the Romans to persecute and kill the Christians.

In any case, we are getting way off the subject of this thread, “Is Revelation John's version of the Olivet Discourse?” We see very similar apocalyptic language, time frame references (shortly, quickly, near, this generation), and identical themes; the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21, Rev. 7:14) and the trampling underfoot of Jerusalem by the gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev 11:1,2). This firmly establishes the relationship between the two. In order to refute this, you will need to show evidence of two great tribulations and two occasions of the trampling underfoot of Jerusalem by the gentiles (NT period).

Actually I've already dealt with it:

* I have demonstrated that the use of the apocalyptic language alone cannot be used to define the subject of the prophecy (that is the fallacy of the undistributed middle, as you have acknowledged)

* I have demonstrated that the symbols in Revelation 6 do not in fact meet the description of events in AD 70

* I have demonstrated that neither the temple of God nor holy the city in Revelation 11 can be the earthly Jerusalem (not only because of the contradiction of terms involved, but also because of the definition of these symbols in Revelation itself, in a manner which shows they cannot refer to the earthly Jerusalem)

Inevitably, we will have to deal with Matthew 24:34. I think you know this, which is why you are desperately trying to keep Revelation and the Olivet Discourse separate.

Actually I'm not trying to keep Revelation and the Olivet prophecy separate - I've been entirely happy to debate the merits of identifying the latter with the former, but I just don't find the arguments compelling, especially when you're limited to only one chapter out of an entire 22.

Nor does Matthew 24:34 concern me (but Luke 21:24 should give you pause for thought).

[puritan lad]

That's quite an astonishing achievement, given that the Roman empire is supposed to be totally destroyed in Daniel 7, but wasn't totally destroyed in the 1st century.

I'll deal with the Kingdom of God on another thread as this one is getting too long. In the meantime, mull over Matthew 10:23 and 16:28.

Could you work Romans 11:28 in there somewhere?

Sure, as long as you don't ignore that fact that “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”…Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.”

The Root is not “earthly Israel”, but rather the visible church, limited to Israel in the OT but not in the new. Unless you view “being grafted in” as becoming a citizen of earthly Israel you have no basis for claiming Covenantal blessings upon Christ rejecting Judaists.

Matthew 21:43
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”

Ok, I need all the historical evidence you can provide that Jerusalem sat on seven hills in the 1st century.

How about I just list them and let you do your research?
3 Mount of Olives Hills (Scopus, Middle, Nob “Mount of Offence”)
Mount Zion
Ophel Mount
Northern Hill (Fort Antonia)
Southwest Hill (later called the New Mount Zion)

Your sole Christian martyr killed by the Romans to please the Jews is James, and that hardly constitutes the Jews receiving power from the Romans to persecute and kill the Christians.

Uh, How about Christ? Peter? Paul? That's a good start, and there is not reason to limit it to just these.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus.

I see no particular and specific perseuction there.

So What? Why was John on Patmos? For the same “tribulation” that ALL SEVEN churches were experiencing. (1:4)

I have demonstrated that neither the temple of God nor holy the city in Revelation 11 can be the earthly Jerusalem (not only because of the contradiction of terms involved, but also because of the definition of these symbols in Revelation itself, in a manner which shows they cannot refer to the earthly Jerusalem)

With a very poor argument as well. You seem to be trying to convince yourself, because you won't convince anyone else.

* Where was the Temple (Rev. 11:1)? Earthly Jerusalem
* What “holy city” was trampled on by gentiles for 42 months (Rev. 11:2)? Earthly Jerusalem.
* Where was the “great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”? Earthly Jerusalem.

Actually I'm not trying to keep Revelation and the Olivet prophecy separate - I've been entirely happy to debate the merits of identifying the latter with the former, but I just don't find the arguments compelling, especially when you're limited to only one chapter out of an entire 22.

One Chapter? I already went through the entire first 6 chapters. I also have the great tribulation and the trampling by the gentiles on my side. Again, you need to prove a second great tribulation and a second “holy city” being trampled on by gentiles. Otherwise, the relationship between Revelation and the Olivet Discourse is rock solid. And I'm not sure why Luke 21:24 should give me pause for thought, since the "time of the gentiles" is clearly defined in Rev. 11:2 as 42 months and is clearly a reference to 70 AD.

[Fortigurn]

Could you work Romans 11:28 in there somewhere?

Sure, as long as you don't ignore that fact that “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”…Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.”

Yes, branches were broken off (and may be grafted in again). This does not change the fact that the Jews are 'beloved for the fathers' sake'.

The Root is not “earthly Israel”, but rather the visible church, limited to Israel in the OT but not in the new.

The root is the promises to Abraham (which is the gospel). The natural Jews were given this promise as their inheritance (but could reject it). We are grafted into those promises. A remnant of the Jews still remains who are acceptable to God, and the Jews will one day be brought into the covenant, they have not been cast away (Romans 11).

Romans 11:
25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”
28 In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

It is clear that God has not cast off His people, that He still refers to them as His people, that the Abrahamic covenant has not been thrown out, that the Jews are 'dearly loved for the sake of the fathers', and that they will receive the blessings of a national conversion, because 'the gifts and call of God are irrevocable'.

Unless you view “being grafted in” as becoming a citizen of earthly Israel you have no basis for claiming Covenantal blessings upon Christ rejecting Judaists.

Being grafted in means being imputed part of the seed of Abraham.

Ok, I need all the historical evidence you can provide that Jerusalem sat on seven hills in the 1st century.

How about I just list them and let you do your research?
3 Mount of Olives Hills (Scopus, Middle, Nob “Mount of Offence”)
Mount Zion
Ophel Mount
Northern Hill (Fort Antonia)
Southwest Hill (later called the New Mount Zion)

Well that's a list of prominences, but I see no historical evidence that Jerusalem sat on seven hills in the 1st century (interesting that you make the Mount of Olives three hills rather than one).

Tell you what, let's ask Josephus - he was there:

The city of Jerusalem was fortified with three walls, on such parts as were not encompassed with unpassable valleys; for in such places it had but one wall.

The city was built upon two hills, which are opposite to one another, and have a valley to divide them asunder; at which valley the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end.

Josephus, 'Wars Of The Jews', Book V, chapter 4, section 1

Ok, that's the end of that story. So how about the phrase 'the city on seven hills'? What would a 1st century audience have understood by that?

Let's see how the phrase was used proximate to the Revelation:

'Rome... the city of the seven hills.'

Cicero, c. 76 BC, 'Letters to Atticus', VI. 5

'Rome became of all things the fairest, and within a single city's wall enclosed her seven hills.

...glorious Rome shall bound her empire with earth, her pride by heaven, and with a single city's wall shall enclose her seven hills.'

Virgil, c. 40 BC, 'Georgics', II; Aenead IV

'...sing the hymn in honour of the gods who love the Seven Hills. ...ne're mayest thou be able to view aught greater than the city of Rome!'

Horace, c. 35 BC, A Secular Hymn, 'The Odes and Epodes', p. 351

'The city high-throned on the seven hills, the queen of all the world... Rome take thy triumph...'

Propertius, c. 20 BC, The Elegies, III. xi

'...Rome, that gazes about from her seven hills upon the whole world - Rome, the place of empire and the gods.'

Ovid, c. 12 BC, Tristia, I. 70

'...may you see the seven sovereign hills and take the measure of all Rome...'

Martial, 40-104 AD, Epigrams, IV. Lxiv

To which may be added Plutarch (AD 46), Tibullus, Propertius, Pliny, Silius Italicus, Statius, Claudian, Prudentius, the Emperor Vespasian (AD 69), Dionysius Halicarnassus (late first century AD).

In addition, we actually find that the Jewish writings around the time of Christ use the phrase 'city on seven hills' to describe none other than Rome.

In Book II of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles, we find:

15 Among most men, and robbery of temples.
And then shall, after these, appear of men
The tenth race, when the earth-shaking Lightener
Shall break the zeal for idols and shall shake
The people of seven-hilled Rome, and riches great

20 Shall perish, burned by Vulcan's fiery flame.

Jewish Sibylline Oracles, Book II, lines 15-20, 150 BC - 300 AD

Nowhere do we find any reference to Jerusalem as 'the city on seven hills'.

That's all pretty clear. It is a simple fact that Rome was understood to be referred to by this idiom — prior to the first century, not during the first century, and not after the first century.

The evidence therefore indicates that Revelation is using a phrase already in the common speech of the day, which would be readily familiar to the reader of the book.

Your sole Christian martyr killed by the Romans to please the Jews is James, and that hardly constitutes the Jews receiving power from the Romans to persecute and kill the Christians.

Uh, How about Christ? Peter? Paul? That's a good start, and there is not reason to limit it to just these.

I've acknowledged Christ and James. I see no evidence that the deaths of either Peter or Paul were the result of Jewish persecution. Nor do I see any evidence that the Jews received power from the Romans to persecute and kill the Christians.

Paul found the exact opposite in his experience - everywhere he went, the Jews tried to get the Romans to punish him, imprison him, or kill him, but the Romans were never interested, and always let him go.

This part of your argument needs a lot more work.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus.

I see no particular and specific perseuction there.

So What? Why was John on Patmos? For the same “tribulation” that ALL SEVEN churches were experiencing. (1:4)[/quoite]

Well that's just it you see, there is no tribulation mentioned there. He's referring generally to 'the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus', just as Paul says 'it is through much tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God'.

As I have already pointed out, only two of the ecclesias in Asia Minor are spoken of as enduring persecution, and three of them are obviously enjoying themselves so much in this life they are falling away from the faith. Not only that, but the great tribulation of which Revelation speaks is still future.

I have demonstrated that neither the temple of God nor holy the city in Revelation 11 can be the earthly Jerusalem (not only because of the contradiction of terms involved, but also because of the definition of these symbols in Revelation itself, in a manner which shows they cannot refer to the earthly Jerusalem)

With a very poor argument as well. You seem to be trying to convince yourself, because you won't convince anyone else.

Can you please explain why these are 'very poor argument'? You haven't actually responded to them yet.

* Where was the Temple (Rev. 11:1)? Earthly Jerusalem
* What “holy city” was trampled on by gentiles for 42 months (Rev. 11:2)? Earthly Jerusalem.

Not according to the passages from Revelation which I have already given. You must deal with Revelation 1-3, which establishes the definitions of these symbols. You cannot avoid those chapters.

* Where was the “great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”? Earthly Jerusalem.

No, John tells us that Christ was crucified 'near to the city', and Paul bases and entire theological argument on the fact that Christ was crucified 'outside the gate'. Both of them declare that Christ was crucified outside the city.

Actually I'm not trying to keep Revelation and the Olivet prophecy separate - I've been entirely happy to debate the merits of identifying the latter with the former, but I just don't find the arguments compelling, especially when you're limited to only one chapter out of an entire 22.

One Chapter? I already went through the entire first 6 chapters.

Let's see:

* You alleged that the PHULAI THS GHS of chapter 1 refers to the tribes of Israel (I have proved that it is not used of the tribes of Israel). You attempted to claim from John's reference to 'tribulation', that there was a widespread persecution of Christians in Asia Minor by Jews (I have demonstrated that this is reading far too much into the text). That was all you gave me from chapter 1.

* You alleged that the letters to the seven ecclesias demonstrate that the Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted by Nero, and by Jews who had received authority to do so from the Romans. I have demonstrated that only two of the ecclesias are spoken of as receiving persecution, that the 'great tribulation' they face is spoken of as still future, and that there is nothing to indicate that they were being persecuted by Jews who had received authority to do so from the Romans (false Christians are the number one problem in the letters to the seven ecclesias).

* You didn't give me anything from chapters 4 or 5.

* You made an argument that Revelation 6 is a reiteration of the warning of the destruction of Jerusalem. You failed to demonstrate how this was supposed to be relevant to the ecclesias in Asia Minor. You declared that Jerusalem was in some way of great importance to them, but failed to proivde any historical evidence to support this.

You declared that the destruction of Jerusalem was the avenging of the martyrs of Asia Minor, but I pointed out that this makes no sense since you had failed to prove that the martyrs of Asia Minor were killed by Jews at all, and that they certainly weren't killed by Jews in Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away. You also failed to demonstrate how the destruction of Jerusalem was in any way the redemption of the Christians in Asia Minor from their persecution (especially since persecution by the Romans only intensified after this date).

* Your argument from Revelation 6 was predicated on the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle, and you failed to harmonise the symbolism used in Revelation 6 with that used in the Olivet prophecy (in particular, you attempted to interpret apocalpytic language as partly literal and partly non-literal, which is a serious exegetical error). Nor did you even deal with all of the language in Revelation 6 (I'm still left wondering what the 'fourth part of the earth' is).

That's all I've had so far. I need a lot more than this. We still have at least another 13 chapters to go.

I also have the great tribulation and the trampling by the gentiles on my side.

If you're talking about the great tribulation and trampling by the Gentiles in the Olivet prophecy, I agree that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the exile and persecution of the Jews subsequent. But I haven't seen those events described in Revelation.

Again, you need to prove a second great tribulation and a second “holy city” being trampled on by gentiles. Otherwise, the relationship between Revelation and the Olivet Discourse is rock solid.

I haven't seen a reference in Revelation to those events yet. Your one attempt to get them into Revelation was your exposition of Revelation 11, which founders as soon as we examine the manner in which Revelation defines both 'the holy city' and 'the temple of God'.

And I'm not sure why Luke 21:24 should give me pause for thought, since the "time of the gentiles" is clearly defined in Rev. 11:2 as 42 months and is clearly a reference to 70 AD.

According to the Olivet prophecy, the 'times of the Gentiles' start after AD 70 - at the point that Jerusalem is destroyed, and the Jews are led away captive into all nations. I believe that covers a lot more than 42 months.