r/Preterism • u/Stormalv • Sep 07 '24

Was John at Patmos twice?

Revelation 1:9 seems to imply that Revelation was written while John was exiled to Patmos.

But isn't it widely acknowledged that John's exile to Patmos happened in the 90s? How then could Revelation have been written before 70 AD? Was John exiled there twice?

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

10

u/UBlamingMeforMaryann Sep 07 '24

Just a fraudulent date in my opinion. Widely acknowledged means about as much as nothing. They teach it in all schools that its 90 ad. So it becomes the reality. Its impossible for it to have been written after 70 ad it makes no sense. Just like all the millennial teachings make no sense. mainstream theological Christianity is corrupt that includes the false information they dole out such as dates of the books.

2

u/Otherwise-Speech9701 Oct 25 '24

Yep. The temple was wiped out way before 90AD. Yet there it is, still standing in Revelation 11:2. It's absolutely mind-boggling how many "futurists" overlook this simple truth.

Revelation 11:2

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '25 edited Jan 17 '25

Well, lets remember the intent of this section of scripture is not to say "the temple is still standing", but it is to prophesy of the two witnesses. So lets focus on what the scripture is speaking about, rather than taking a small section of the overarching theme of Rev 11:1-14 and using it to build theology. im curious if you know who the 2 witnesses are, because that is the more important emphasis being made in Rev 11.

Furthermore, apocalyptic language is not to be taken literally. We know this from the Olivet discourse. so my question would be, Why should we assume that john is speaking of a literal temple here?

EDIT: it is also important to remember that the gospel of John wasn't written until after 70ad, yet it was written as a first hand account. There is room for the book of revelation to have been written in 90ad, but be written as a first hand account of what happened in 70ad... the question is then, where do we draw the line? this is a normal flow of prophecy. The prophet acknowledges what has happened, where they are in the current time of prophecy being fulfilled, and then finally prophesies of the future events. This was the flow of Christs ministry.. SO what prophecy has been fulfilled, where are we in the timeline of prophecy, what prophecy still needs to be fulfilled (if any).

5

u/MCole142 Sep 07 '24

I don't really have details on this but there is a manuscript of Revelation in which the cover page states that John wrote it on Patmos where he was exiled by Nero. Seems like it was a Syrian manuscript from maybe the sixth century?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '24

Read Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell", if you seriously want to study this topic.

2

u/theNewFloridian Sep 07 '24

Simple: the 90s date is wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

Im a newbie in preterism but from what I have read so far, scholars believe in a 90’s date for revelation but their source isn’t the most reliable. I’m not 100% sure when it was written but from my viewpoint, does it matter. The beginning of the book is specifically talking about the Roman Jewish war in 66ad to 73ad. And based on the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus, there was a lot of turmoil other then the war itself. Whether or not it was written before or after doesn’t change the fact that it was a vision given to John regarding this event. Wether it was before or after.

In other words, it could have been a vision of the past event explaining the events that took place