Revelation 3:14-22

[Bride]

How does one get the idea that it was delivered to James in 69AD?

James' zeal for Jesus resulted in his being the first of the 12 apostles to be martyred. He was killed with the sword on order of King Herod Agrippa I of Judea, about 44 A.D., in a general persecution of the early church. - The Apostle James Was the First Martyred Apostle

Beside the secular history, there is this...

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Oh, yes I did say James didn't I. I meant the Pastor of the Jerusalem Church, and James was until his death and I stand corrected for the most part. And I did read in my studies of another James who was probably the pastor succeeding James the brother of Jesus. Three different James' are mentioned in scriptures, and as much scholarly work as I've done I don't recall those finer points off hand.
Nonetheless, it was a continuation of the olivet prophecy and the Revelation was delivered to the New Jerusalem Church prior to AD 70 of course, as Jesus protecting and delivering His New Bride from the burning of the old whorish wicked Jerusalem. The other "historical" later publishing date claims are bogus and fruitless to pursue and will drive you into lala land.

 

[john832]

I do believe that Revelation was delivered to John on the isle of Patmos in/about 96AD.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I do believe that Revelation was delivered to John on the isle of Patmos in/about 96AD.

It is also my understanding from my research that book of Revelation was recorded by Apostle John on the island of Patmos where he was exiled by the roman king Domitian. Though in terms of dates I have seen a spectrum between 90-110 AD.

 

[Straightshot]

My comment

I agree with the above

However, the real substance of the Lord's Revelation is that the things noted after chapter 3 are all future events that have never yet taken place .... they will

There are a few historical back drops included for overview, but His Revelation is still pending

Those who claim fulfillment in the past [the preteristic application] must destroy the literal content in order to support their interpretation .... this destroys the fabric of the book

..... the very intent of those who do this

The RCC and most of the protestant denominations today are preteristic and also replacement theologists

This position makes the Book of Revelation irrelevant which is exactly the motive

 

[GodIsSalvation]

My comment

I agree with the above

However, the real substance of the Lord's Revelation is that the things noted after chapter 3 are all future events that have never yet taken place .... they will

There are a few historical back drops included for overview, but His Revelation is still pending

Those who claim fulfillment in the past [the preteristic application] must destroy the literal content in order to support their interpretation .... this destroys the fabric of the book

..... the very intent of those who do this

The RCC and most of the protestant denominations today are preteristic and also replacement theologists

This position makes the Book of Revelation irrelevant which is exactly the motive

I agree with some of this, particularly the part about preterism. Not only is preterism incompatible with Revelation, but it is even funny enough not compatible with even just history alone.

I do disagree though that everyone that misinterprets Revelation does so for the motive of making the book irrelevant. No doubt there are some that do this, but it has been my observation that for the most part the misinterpretations of Revelation arise from simple misunderstandings and/or confusion from the influence of pop culture.