There's no "end times" in the Bible, there's "the end of the age"
The "apocalypse" evangelicals misinterpret from The book of Daniel and the book of Revelation was talking about the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome's armies in 70 AD. The end of the temple age since the New covenant doesn't require a temple or sacrifice because we become the temple and Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
This came on time and as promised by biblical prophecy and jesus's own words "this generation shall not pass till all these things take place"
Jesus came on the clouds in judgment and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple using Rome's armies. At the same time there was also an eclipse that lasted way longer than they're supposed to and the streets were filled with the dead and running with blood and there were plagues running rampant as Rome laid siege. The secular accounts like the history of Josephus are quite incredible.
About 200 years ago the rothschilds funded the first Bible with footnotes explaining difficult passages and it also spread a virtually unheard of Fringe view of the end times called premillennial dispensationalism. This is not what Christians traditionally believed for 1800 years. This new belief in the end times basically says that Christians lose down here but that's okay cuz we're all raptured away and got fixes everything but there's nothing we can do about it. It'll also puts Israel as Central to Future fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
This turned the modern Church into essentially a neutered simp. Imagine a if you work on the Titanic and you know the ships going down... Are you going to polish the brass in silverware? No.
God wins down here. Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father making all of his enemies his footstool as the gospel goes out and spreads.
All that's left is final judgment where the wicked will be swept off the Earth just like in the days of Noah but with a fiery judgment. Those that are in christ, which is symbolic of the ark, will be safe from the destruction to come.
Hey, look! I can look through comment histories, too!
"The book of Revelation was talking about the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome's armies in 70 AD."
Revelation was written more than 20 years AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation doesn't predict anything if you hold to muh preterism. You are just proving that you don't know anything at all. Your lack of understanding is on full display.
Ah, yes—the late-date thesis. (Which is widely disputed) The theological equivalent of insisting the obituary was printed before the man died, and now you’re wondering why the funeral already happened. Let’s run this through the woodchipper, shall we?
No Mention of the Destruction of Jerusalem — The Dog that Didn’t Bark
If Revelation was written after 70 AD, then John apparently forgot to mention the most theologically significant covenantal event since the Resurrection. That’s like writing a post-1945 history of Germany and never mentioning World War II or that little mustachioed fellow with control issues.
The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a cataclysmic fulfillment of Jesus' own prophecy in Matthew 24. If John had written Revelation in 95 AD, he'd be the only New Testament author pretending that the Temple was still standing and that Jerusalem hadn’t been turned into a Roman barbecue pit. But in Revelation 11, he’s told to measure the temple. Why? Because it's still standing. That’s a bit of a problem for the late-date crowd—unless you're fond of metaphorically measuring rubble.
The Beast Is Still "Coming" — Not Retired on Patmos
The early-date position sees Revelation as being written under the reign of Nero, the bloodthirsty Caesar who made Caligula look like a kindergarten teacher. Nero fits the bill for the Beast like a tailored suit. His name in Hebrew numerology (gematria) adds up to 666. He persecuted Christians, murdered Peter and Paul, and fiddled while Rome burned—then blamed the Christians for it.
If Revelation was written after 70 AD, then Nero is already worm food, and John is warning us about a beast that’s already pushing up daisies. That turns Revelation into a bad horror movie where the monster dies in act one, but everyone’s still screaming in act three.
Internal Evidence Screams Early Date
John says in Revelation 17:10 that there are seven kings, and “five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come.” If we count from Julius Caesar forward, the sixth king—“one is”—would be Nero. But if you're dating Revelation in the 90s AD, you’re way past Nero, and that verse becomes a riddle that only a Jehovah’s Witness with a chart and a dartboard could interpret.
Also, Revelation repeatedly says the events "must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). That’s not apocalyptic code for "2,000 years later." If your wife says she’ll be ready “shortly,” and she shows up in a millennium, that's not called faithfulness—that's called a missing persons report.
The Testimony of the Church Fathers is Split and Often Misread
People love to trot out Irenaeus as the smoking gun for a late date. But the actual Greek is ambiguous. The phrase most rely on (“seen...toward the end of Domitian’s reign”) could just as easily refer to the time when John was seen—not when the Revelation was written. You could drive a Roman chariot through the interpretive ambiguity.
And even if Irenaeus meant what they think he meant, the man also believed Jesus lived to be over 50 years old. You want to build your entire dating framework on that guy? That's like quoting a drunk uncle because he agrees with you on gas prices.
Why Would Revelation Be About Irrelevant Events?
If John is writing in 95 AD, and all the stuff about Jerusalem, the temple, and Nero is already ancient history, then Revelation becomes a confusing pastiche of vaguely symbolic doom about a beast no longer in power, a temple no longer standing, and a judgment already passed. In that case, the book is less prophetic and more nostalgic—sort of like reading about the dangers of the Soviet Union in 2025.
But if Revelation is written in the 60s AD, then the book is a direct, urgent warning to the early church about an event that was about to rock their entire world—the end of the Old Covenant order. That interpretation doesn’t just sing; it sings in Latin while the Temple burns behind it.
In sum: the late date doesn’t hold water unless you read with your eyes closed and a Scofield Bible duct-taped to your forehead. The early date fits the internal evidence, the historical context, the theological significance, and the timeline of fulfillment like a glove on a Roman executioner.
If you want to hang your theology on Domitian, be my guest. But I’ll stick with Scripture, the time stamps it gives, and the historical events it actually predicted.
It's also part of the apocalypse / end times right?
There's no "end times" in the Bible, there's "the end of the age" The "apocalypse" evangelicals misinterpret from The book of Daniel and the book of Revelation was talking about the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome's armies in 70 AD. The end of the temple age since the New covenant doesn't require a temple or sacrifice because we become the temple and Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
This came on time and as promised by biblical prophecy and jesus's own words "this generation shall not pass till all these things take place"
Jesus came on the clouds in judgment and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple using Rome's armies. At the same time there was also an eclipse that lasted way longer than they're supposed to and the streets were filled with the dead and running with blood and there were plagues running rampant as Rome laid siege. The secular accounts like the history of Josephus are quite incredible.
About 200 years ago the rothschilds funded the first Bible with footnotes explaining difficult passages and it also spread a virtually unheard of Fringe view of the end times called premillennial dispensationalism. This is not what Christians traditionally believed for 1800 years. This new belief in the end times basically says that Christians lose down here but that's okay cuz we're all raptured away and got fixes everything but there's nothing we can do about it. It'll also puts Israel as Central to Future fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
This turned the modern Church into essentially a neutered simp. Imagine a if you work on the Titanic and you know the ships going down... Are you going to polish the brass in silverware? No.
God wins down here. Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father making all of his enemies his footstool as the gospel goes out and spreads.
All that's left is final judgment where the wicked will be swept off the Earth just like in the days of Noah but with a fiery judgment. Those that are in christ, which is symbolic of the ark, will be safe from the destruction to come.
Hey, look! I can look through comment histories, too!
"The book of Revelation was talking about the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome's armies in 70 AD."
Revelation was written more than 20 years AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation doesn't predict anything if you hold to muh preterism. You are just proving that you don't know anything at all. Your lack of understanding is on full display.
Ah, yes—the late-date thesis. (Which is widely disputed) The theological equivalent of insisting the obituary was printed before the man died, and now you’re wondering why the funeral already happened. Let’s run this through the woodchipper, shall we?
If Revelation was written after 70 AD, then John apparently forgot to mention the most theologically significant covenantal event since the Resurrection. That’s like writing a post-1945 history of Germany and never mentioning World War II or that little mustachioed fellow with control issues.
The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a cataclysmic fulfillment of Jesus' own prophecy in Matthew 24. If John had written Revelation in 95 AD, he'd be the only New Testament author pretending that the Temple was still standing and that Jerusalem hadn’t been turned into a Roman barbecue pit. But in Revelation 11, he’s told to measure the temple. Why? Because it's still standing. That’s a bit of a problem for the late-date crowd—unless you're fond of metaphorically measuring rubble.
The early-date position sees Revelation as being written under the reign of Nero, the bloodthirsty Caesar who made Caligula look like a kindergarten teacher. Nero fits the bill for the Beast like a tailored suit. His name in Hebrew numerology (gematria) adds up to 666. He persecuted Christians, murdered Peter and Paul, and fiddled while Rome burned—then blamed the Christians for it.
If Revelation was written after 70 AD, then Nero is already worm food, and John is warning us about a beast that’s already pushing up daisies. That turns Revelation into a bad horror movie where the monster dies in act one, but everyone’s still screaming in act three.
John says in Revelation 17:10 that there are seven kings, and “five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come.” If we count from Julius Caesar forward, the sixth king—“one is”—would be Nero. But if you're dating Revelation in the 90s AD, you’re way past Nero, and that verse becomes a riddle that only a Jehovah’s Witness with a chart and a dartboard could interpret.
Also, Revelation repeatedly says the events "must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). That’s not apocalyptic code for "2,000 years later." If your wife says she’ll be ready “shortly,” and she shows up in a millennium, that's not called faithfulness—that's called a missing persons report.
People love to trot out Irenaeus as the smoking gun for a late date. But the actual Greek is ambiguous. The phrase most rely on (“seen...toward the end of Domitian’s reign”) could just as easily refer to the time when John was seen—not when the Revelation was written. You could drive a Roman chariot through the interpretive ambiguity.
And even if Irenaeus meant what they think he meant, the man also believed Jesus lived to be over 50 years old. You want to build your entire dating framework on that guy? That's like quoting a drunk uncle because he agrees with you on gas prices.
If John is writing in 95 AD, and all the stuff about Jerusalem, the temple, and Nero is already ancient history, then Revelation becomes a confusing pastiche of vaguely symbolic doom about a beast no longer in power, a temple no longer standing, and a judgment already passed. In that case, the book is less prophetic and more nostalgic—sort of like reading about the dangers of the Soviet Union in 2025.
But if Revelation is written in the 60s AD, then the book is a direct, urgent warning to the early church about an event that was about to rock their entire world—the end of the Old Covenant order. That interpretation doesn’t just sing; it sings in Latin while the Temple burns behind it.
In sum: the late date doesn’t hold water unless you read with your eyes closed and a Scofield Bible duct-taped to your forehead. The early date fits the internal evidence, the historical context, the theological significance, and the timeline of fulfillment like a glove on a Roman executioner.
If you want to hang your theology on Domitian, be my guest. But I’ll stick with Scripture, the time stamps it gives, and the historical events it actually predicted.
AI debaters are so fucking cringe.