And I just guessed that.
It is also interesting that Laodicea was destroyed before the earliest date for the Book of Revelation. By the time the book was written Laodicea was considered once again a rich city. It probably took at least 10-15 years to go from rubble to rich thus belying any assertion that the book of Revelation was written within just a few short years of such a major devastation.
Apparently Laodicea was completely restored at the beginning of the second century thus making the 95 AD date for Revelation much more likely than a 66-67 AD date. I suspect that in 67 AD the city was still on the rebound and would not have been referred to as "rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing". I suspect that in 67 AD they were still in need of much.
"I suspect that in 67 AD the city was still on the rebound and would not have been referred to as "rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing". I suspect that in 67 AD they were still in need of much."
I think we can safely say that between 62-64A.D. Laodicea was not in the spiritual decline that we find in Revelation.
Col 4:12 "Epaphras, who is [one] of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them [that are] in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea."
Seems Paul did not have anything negative to say about the church.