You indicated that John was warning of a persecution that had not been seen before.
Again, remember that we are talking about the persecution of Christians by Nero. Did John write Revelation 13 before Nero persecuted Christians? Yes or No?
Persecution was a way of life for those christians
That is irrelevant to what I have written in this thread.
and John was persecuted during the reign of Nero, persecution BEFORE Revelation was written.
BEFORE Revelation 13 was written, were Christians persecuted BY NERO? Yes or No?
John, in Revelation 13, was merely writing what Christians already knew before he wrote it?
Yes or No? In Revelation 13, was John merely writing what Christians already knew before he wrote it? Yes or No?
He was writing the WHOLE BOOK of Revelation
That is irrelevant, and no one said John was not writing the WHOLE BOOK of Revelation. But you agree that John
was writing Revelation 13, no?
(why are you fixed on that chapter)
Is Revelation 13 about persecution of Christians by Nero? Yes or No?
to warn them that a persecution and Jacobs trouble was coming that no people had ever experienced nor would again.
Did John write Revelation 13 to warn them that a persecution BY NERO was coming? Yes or No?
The destruction of the temple and the end of the Mosaic was big in Christian history as Judaism as Moses had taught it was to be ended forever. And they would suffer along the way but God was about to judge Israel punishing them for crucifying the Son of God. This was big.
All of that is irrelevant to what I've written in this thread.
I have not read Russell or Gentry
If you
read my OP, you will see that this thread is about what Russell says about the dating of the writing of Revelation, and about what Gentry says about the dating of the writing of Revelation. If you're not here to try to deal with what this thread is about, then why are you posting in this thread?
let us stick to the Bible. Nero had already started persecuting the church before John was sentenced to Patmos since Nero sentenced him there.
Claiming, as you do, that Nero sentenced John to banishment on Patmos is not sticking to the Bible. But that's beside the point.
Nero blamed the christians for the fire.
That is also irrelevant to what I have written in this thread, and is another example of not sticking to the Bible.
Nero had already started persecuting the church before John was sentenced to Patmos since Nero sentenced him there. If those two gents think and John was predicting Nero's persecution which they think had not started, they have a problem as John, being already on Patmos, was already persecuted at the time of writing the text.
This is the first thing you've said that is relevant to my thread. Unfortunately, in writing it, you show that you have not carefully read what I have written in this thread. Had you
read my OP, you'd have seen from my quotation that one of those two authors (Gentry) thinks that Nero had started persecuting Christians before John wrote Revelation 13, and that the other of those two authors (Russell) thinks that John wrote Revelation 13 before Nero started persecuting Christians. You'd have seen that one of them (Russell) regards Revelation 13 as predicting that Nero would persecute Christians, and that the other (Gentry) regards Revelation 13 as not predicting that Nero would persecute Christians.
- In Revelation 13, is John writing about Nero persecuting Christians? Yes or No?
- In Revelation 13, is John describing events which will take place after he has written it? (In other words, in Revelation 13, is he predicting the events about which he is writing?) Yes or No?
I do not see any clash. Sorry.
But then, you've not carefully read nor reflected upon what I've written in this thread, so that's no surprise. If you can't see that a time that falls in the year 64 or earlier (Russell's dating) is not/cannot be a time that falls within the years 65 and 66 (Gentry's dating), I'm afraid that I can't help you.
the persecution starts in 64 AD
Again, I will leave of Henry and Russell as they are not a part of the conversation and cannot defend themselves.
Who is
Henry?? If you're not here to try to deal with the conflict between the preterist author Russell and the preterist author Gentry, then you have nothing of relevance to post in this thread. And, by your admission that you are not trying to deal with what I, in
my OP, have quoted those two preterist authors as saying, you are admitting that your posts in this thread are irrelevant, and spam.
So you agree that John did not write Revelation 13 in A.D. 64 or earlier? Because that's when Russell thinks it was written.
So you agree that John did not write Revelation 13 in the years A.D. 65/66? Because that's when Gentry thinks it was written.
Remember, also, that you've already said:
Anything pre 70AD sounds good.
So, according to you, Russell's dating of Revelation 13 "sounds good", even though you say he's "wrong" therein. And likewise, according to you, Gentry's dating of Revelation 13 "sounds good", even though you say he's "likely wrong" therein.
I mean, when does his think John was sentenced and why?
I do not know that Russell ever even got around to
questioning--much less,
answering--how John ended up on the island of Patmos. You can read his book,
The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry Into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord, online. I can't even find Russell writing the name, 'Patmos', therein. And if he shares your view--that banishment by Nero is why John was on Patmos--he never says so, so far as I've been able to see. And Russell's stipulation that Revelation 13 had to have been written before Nero persecuted Christians would, if he wishes to be self-consistent, debar him from agreeing with your extra-Biblical claim that Nero banished John to Patmos. And, despite the fact that you (and other preterists) like to think of yourself as "sticking to the Bible", you're obviously not getting it from the Bible that Nero banished John to Patmos.
I do not see what problem is there in the timing.
Um, you just got done telling me that Russell is "wrong" in his timing of the writing of Revelation 13, and that Gentry is "likely wrong" in his timing of the writing of Revelation 13, so obviously you do think their timings of the writing of Revelation 13 are problematic.
I am supposed to show you where Peter and Paul wrote about them being beheaded, crucified after they were dead?
As you admit, the Bible does not say that either Peter or Paul was crucified or beheaded. So, when you try to sell your claim that those men died in those ways, you are necessarily left with appealing to extra-Biblical writings. Which shows that you're not really all about "sticking to the Bible", as you fancy yourself to be.
When do you think those men could have possibly written about Nero sentencing them to death?
At any time in their careers as Apostles, had God wanted them to do so.
This is called history and there is lots of it outside the writings of those two men.
Perhaps it is
called "history". So what? That's a different question from the question of whether it is
true.