[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], i really HAVE discovered the antichrist! (and this time it really is him)
- Thread starter Gary777
- Start date
- Status
Parousia70,
I was already totally convinced about the pre ad70 date of revelation, but you certainly have enriched me with some more good points for this view.
I was already totally convinced about the pre ad70 date of revelation, but you certainly have enriched me with some more good points for this view.
Upvote
0
B
Bevlina
Guest
And...Jesus stated even He did not know the time of the end. The only one who knew was His Father...in heaven...
Upvote
0
Rev 2:2,The letter is adressed to the church of Ephesus."I know your works,your labor,your patience,and how you cannot bear those who are evil.And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not,and have found them liars". You cannot twist this verse to prove there were any apostles alive other than John when he wrote Rev .It was the Emperor Domitian who banished John to Patmos and Domitians reign was a.d. 81-96.John was released from Patomas after Domitian died in a.d. 96.This in itself proves Rev was written around 95 a.d.Here is the order of the Roman rulers.Tiberius(a.d.14-37),Caligula (a.d.37-41),Claudius(a.d.42-54),Nero (a.d.54-68),first emperor to persecute Christians.Galba(a.d.68-69),Otho and Vitellis (a.d.69(,Vespasian (a.d.69-79),Jerusalem destroyed(a.d.70),Domitian (a.d.81-96) John banished to Patomas.Nerva (a.d.96-98),Trajan(a.d.98-117) NT books completed.John outlived all the other apostles,in fullfilment of Jesus prophecy in John 21:20-24.The early church father Irenaeus (a.d.120-202) wrote in a.d. 180 that John wrote Revelation near the end of Domitians reign (a.d 81-96),almost in our day.Preterist Ken Gentry said,"if it could be demonstrated that revelation was written 25 years after the fall of Jerusalem,Chiltons entire work would go up in smoke".All credible Bible scholars agree that Rev was written around a.d 95-96.Also the Gospel of John was written no later than a.d.85-90. 1st and 2nd John were also written around a.d.85-90,and none mention the fall of Jerusalem that had already occurred in a.d.70.Preterist is a false belief,and flies in the face of proven historical facts.
Upvote
0
roadie432002 said:
good post roadie.....the churches in the 70ad time frame were in their infant stage....
John didn't write Revelation as a past or current event....blessed is he that keepth the sayings of the prophecy of this book......a prophecy is a future occurrence....these writings of Revelation weren't published overnight.....
Upvote
0
vinsight.......just food for thought....at the moment...technically...wouldn't the king of Iraq be commander in chief of the U.S........
and yes..Dan.11...14&15....robbers of thy people.....most fenced cities....a living prophecy this very moment.....
and yes..Dan.11...14&15....robbers of thy people.....most fenced cities....a living prophecy this very moment.....
Upvote
0
roadie432002 said:
Dear Roadie,
you have claim this: "It was the Emperor Domitian who banished John to Patmos and Domitians reign was a.d. 81-96.". Please show some reasons for how you can say this (more the the irenaeus quote)
You say that "All credible Bible scholars agree that Rev was written around a.d 95-96.". Are you saying that non of theses are credible?
Robert Young (late 1800s)
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)
Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion--the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)
"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)
"Tertullian's legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome. (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428)
"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called 'the most soul-stirring of all ancient history.' But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (The History of the Christian Church, Vol I; 6:38)
George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)
Steve Gregg (1997)
"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown (1871)
"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement Of Alexandria's story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. (3) Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Caesar. (4) Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64)...(5) Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero." (Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible - 1871)
A.N. Wilson (1977)
"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated? Such a radical view inspired J.A.T. Robinson's 'Redating the New Testament,' which made a spirited case for supposing that all the books of the canon were completed before 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 254)
"The historian who tries to date and place John's Revelation is guided by the author to a quite specific time span. The words of Revelation are written down four years after the Roman fire, and shortly after Nero's own death. We know that they were written before the ultimate calamity of the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70...He writes of the earthly temple as still in existence [Rev 11:1-2]." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 11)
"In Paul's lifetime, and Nero's, there was no such thing as the New Testament--even though some of its individual writings (perhaps all of them in some primitive form) could be dated to before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 19)
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)
Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion--the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)
"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)
"Tertullian's legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome. (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428)
"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called 'the most soul-stirring of all ancient history.' But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (The History of the Christian Church, Vol I; 6:38)
George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)
Steve Gregg (1997)
"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown (1871)
"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement Of Alexandria's story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. (3) Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Caesar. (4) Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64)...(5) Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero." (Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible - 1871)
A.N. Wilson (1977)
"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated? Such a radical view inspired J.A.T. Robinson's 'Redating the New Testament,' which made a spirited case for supposing that all the books of the canon were completed before 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 254)
"The historian who tries to date and place John's Revelation is guided by the author to a quite specific time span. The words of Revelation are written down four years after the Roman fire, and shortly after Nero's own death. We know that they were written before the ultimate calamity of the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70...He writes of the earthly temple as still in existence [Rev 11:1-2]." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 11)
"In Paul's lifetime, and Nero's, there was no such thing as the New Testament--even though some of its individual writings (perhaps all of them in some primitive form) could be dated to before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 19)
If you dont have any other proofs than the irenaeus wuote, have you considered this:
All belief in the late date rests upon one cryptic statment of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200AD) who wrote his "Against Heresies" around AD 174. All those that hold to the late date do so because of this one uncertain phrase by Irenaeus, and it is highly controversial as to what Irenaeus said. Apologist Daniel Denham, a late-date advocate, admitted that the testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the late date, and goes on to admit some problems with this "bastion of evidence." First, the Greek language of Irenaeus can be understood to refer not to the Revelation, but to John being seen on Patmos. Second, he observes it is possible that Irenaeus has been misunderstood. Scholar Robert Young stated that the name Domitianou, referring actually to Nero, was mistaken by later writers for Domitian. Irenaeus' quote is listed below, with a few comments from well-respected scholars:
Irenaeus' Solitary Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)
Irenaeus' Solitary Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)
This one quote from this churchfather was rejected by many other churchfathers. Why not belive them?
F.W. Farrar (1831-1904)
On Early Church Fathers that openly rejected Irenaeus' testimony
"The Alogi at the close of the second century rejected it [Revelation] only on internal grounds, and their judgment is of no importance. Gaius (circ. 200) appears to attribute it to Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 247) was inclined, on the grounds of style, to assign it to some other John, but speaks of it with reverence. Eusebius wavers about it, placing it among the spurious books in one passage, and among the acknowledged books in another. Cyril of Jerusalem (386) deliberately excludes it from the Canon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 381) omits it. Amphilochius, in his Jamb. ad Selecus, says that 'most' regard it as spurious. Junilius, even in the sixth, says that among the members of the Eastern Church it was viewed with great suspicion. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) never cites it. Theodoret (457) alludes to it very slightly. It is not found in the Peshito. The Nestorian Church rejected it. It is not mentioned in the sixth century by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Nicephorus (ninth century) in his Chronographia omits it. Even in the fourteenth century Nicephorus Callistus, while accepting it, thinks it necessary to mention that some held it to be the work of 'John the Presbyter,' regarded as a different person from 'John the Apostle.' " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)
"...the authority of Irenaeus was not regarded as decisive, even if his meaning be undisputed. Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero. Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the 'Life of Timotheus,' of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that 'John was banished by the tyrant,' and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian. Moreover, if we accept erroneous tradition of inference from the ambiguous expressions of Irenaeus, we are landed in insuperable difficulties. By the time that Domitian died, St. John was, according to all testimony, so old and so infirm that even if there were no other obstacles in the way, it is impossible to conceive of him as writing the fiery pages of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus may have been misinterpreted; but even if not, he might have made a 'slip of memory,' and confused Domitian with Nero. ... We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero. " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)
On Early Church Fathers that openly rejected Irenaeus' testimony
"The Alogi at the close of the second century rejected it [Revelation] only on internal grounds, and their judgment is of no importance. Gaius (circ. 200) appears to attribute it to Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 247) was inclined, on the grounds of style, to assign it to some other John, but speaks of it with reverence. Eusebius wavers about it, placing it among the spurious books in one passage, and among the acknowledged books in another. Cyril of Jerusalem (386) deliberately excludes it from the Canon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 381) omits it. Amphilochius, in his Jamb. ad Selecus, says that 'most' regard it as spurious. Junilius, even in the sixth, says that among the members of the Eastern Church it was viewed with great suspicion. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) never cites it. Theodoret (457) alludes to it very slightly. It is not found in the Peshito. The Nestorian Church rejected it. It is not mentioned in the sixth century by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Nicephorus (ninth century) in his Chronographia omits it. Even in the fourteenth century Nicephorus Callistus, while accepting it, thinks it necessary to mention that some held it to be the work of 'John the Presbyter,' regarded as a different person from 'John the Apostle.' " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)
"...the authority of Irenaeus was not regarded as decisive, even if his meaning be undisputed. Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero. Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the 'Life of Timotheus,' of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that 'John was banished by the tyrant,' and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian. Moreover, if we accept erroneous tradition of inference from the ambiguous expressions of Irenaeus, we are landed in insuperable difficulties. By the time that Domitian died, St. John was, according to all testimony, so old and so infirm that even if there were no other obstacles in the way, it is impossible to conceive of him as writing the fiery pages of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus may have been misinterpreted; but even if not, he might have made a 'slip of memory,' and confused Domitian with Nero. ... We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero. " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)
Upvote
0
Also, if the article is not enough, i think this free e-book by ken gentry makes it crystal clear to when rev. was written: http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbj.pdf
Upvote
0
Should i take this deafening silence as a "yes, revelation obviously was written before ad 70" or is it just that the discussion is finished and we're moving on?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Why should there be interest as to the date it was written?Gary777 said:
Would it change the start and end period of the 1000 year reign?
Upvote
0
Linda8 said:
Hi Linda8,
AS you can see from the thread ... btw, i dont blame u for not reading the thread...some ppl actually have better ways to use their time
...the proofs for the fulfilment of most of revelation during the 3.5 year war against israel, started by ceasar nero, is overwhelming. The main point that futurists (those who belive that most of revelation will be fulfilled in the futere) use against this view is that revelation was written long after this war happened. But as you can see in some of the posts in this thread we have much more reason to belive that john wrote this book just before this war in ad66-ad70. Historians, like Flavius josefus, gives us detailed information in his books about this war that enden in the desolation of the temple and jerusalem and from them it is very easy to see that this was very easily could be the fulfilment of john revelation, or most of it anyway.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,076
- 17,411
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Actually, I see no reason to believe it was written before 95 AD.
1. The church at Smyrna had not yet been formed. Polycarp, student of John, wrote:
Polycarp, in letter to the Phillippians.
"Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world? "(64) as Paul teaches. But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended(65) in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known Him.
2. Laodicea - Paul did not write to them as if they were about to be spit out in his letters written in the 60's AD.
3. Ireneaus wrote that John received the vision while banished to Patmos by Dominitan. ]"If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."
There is historical evidence that Dominitan banished people to Patmos. However, there is absolutely none that Nero banished anyone - he tortured and killed them.
And that John was banished by Dominitan is also stated here:
From Victorinus, (about 300 AD) Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, regarding chapter 10:
11. "And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings."] He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. [/bThere, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.
From Eusebius (260 340 A.D), Church History, book 3:
Chapter XVII. The Persecution Under Domitian.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his. hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us,(149) although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.(150)
but hey, this is a bit off-topic... so that's enough..
1. The church at Smyrna had not yet been formed. Polycarp, student of John, wrote:
Polycarp, in letter to the Phillippians.
"Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world? "(64) as Paul teaches. But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended(65) in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known Him.
2. Laodicea - Paul did not write to them as if they were about to be spit out in his letters written in the 60's AD.
3. Ireneaus wrote that John received the vision while banished to Patmos by Dominitan. ]"If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."
There is historical evidence that Dominitan banished people to Patmos. However, there is absolutely none that Nero banished anyone - he tortured and killed them.
And that John was banished by Dominitan is also stated here:
From Victorinus, (about 300 AD) Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, regarding chapter 10:
11. "And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings."] He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. [/bThere, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.
From Eusebius (260 340 A.D), Church History, book 3:
Chapter XVII. The Persecution Under Domitian.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his. hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us,(149) although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.(150)
but hey, this is a bit off-topic... so that's enough..
Upvote
0
FreeinChrist said:
Well, we have already shown some pretty good reasons too belive in a pread70 date for revelations. Lots more infor about this is easy to find for instance in gentrys book "dating the revelation": http://freebooks.entrewave.com/free...a_pdfs/kgbj.pdf (its free in this pdf version)
FreeinChrist said:
This does in no way proove that smyrna hadn't received the gospel when john wrote revelation, for when paul wrote his letter to the philipians he was in prison in rome from ad61 to ad63. That means that pauls letter was written years before johns revelation, maybe 5 years before anyway, and smyrna could have been reached in those years before ad66 when it is belived that john penned it.
You use smyrnas as an example, then what about laodichea? John also wrote to laodichea in revelation, but long before domitians regin laodichea was already destroyed by an earthquake. But obviosly laodichea existed when john was on patmos. (of course they could have rebuild it really fast, but that is unlikely according to historians)
FreeinChrist said:
What letter? If you think of the apocryphic pauls letter to laodiceans, there is a reason for why it is not included in the bible...enough said.
FreeinChrist said:
Yes, and this is the only sentence from the early churchfathers about the date, but this sentence is, as i'm sure you know, not a sure source, for the article translated "the" also means "he". "For HE was seen not long ago...", and therefor john could himself witness about the book.
FreeinChrist said:
History records that nero both killed jews and saints and also banished people to islands. Several old bible versions, like the syriac peshitta actually have it in the text that john was banished to patmos under neros reign. And the edition prepared in A.D. 508 by Polycarpus, the chorepiscopus of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbug, hence its designation as the Philoxenian version.w Their titles say.- written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.
FreeinChrist said:
victorious... this man from the fourth century had no better reasons for dating the revalation than we have today, since he didn't live in the first century or even in the lifetime of john or his disciples or any of the early churchfathers. Also, the only support for late date is irenaeus, since eusebius works came later.
The other weird thing about victorious is that according to his story, john was made to work in the mines on patmos. well, if this happened under domitian in ad96, then john most have been in his 90ths also. We know tha john rounded 100 years, but it doesn't seem likely that they would force a man soon to reach 100 years to take the trip from ephesus to rome, and there sentence him to patmos to be forced to "work in the mines", and the come back to ephesus and keep on his apostolic work. Ok, it may hev happened by a miracle, but why is it a man from the 4th century that comes with this story and not some of the earlier once? I could state the same thing, but since i wasn't there and can't show to any witnesses for my statement we can't take this as a weigthy argument at all.
FreeinChrist said:
The problem with eusebius and his argument for a late dating of revelation is that he build it upon the same quote from irenaeus. Also, eusebius was not even sure that john actually wrote revelations...that would make all his arguments stumble i bit i think.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,076
- 17,411
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The letter in Rev. 2 to Smryna refers to a church that is rich in spirit, poor in wealth. The implication I see that it is a church that existed enough to grow and suffer persecution.Gary777 said:
While we do not have an exact date for when Smyrna was reached, I think you are grasping at straws to try and place it's founding, growth and then persecution between 60- 65 AD.
How is Laodicea described in Rev.? Lukewarm and wealthy.
There was an earthquake that leveled Laodicea in 60AD. Yet, Paul, writing in 60-62 AD mentions Laodicea in favorable terms, as an active. Paul wanted his letter shared with them, and was expecting a letter from them. No lukewarmness mentioned. Yet, between 62 - 65...what proof is offered that they became lukewarm in this time? none.
Paul refers to them in Colossians 4 times. Enough said.
The idea that 'it' should be translated as 'he' is ridiculous.
"If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."
The 'it' refers to the 'revelation' - a vision. Visions are seen. Trying to turn this around that 'John was seen' is destroying the sentence structure. Even in Greek.
This sentence was written before 200 AD. Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of John himself.
Name a source that says Nero banished Christians. He loved to torture and kill them for entertainment. No indication that he banished anyone to Patmos.
We do have a source that Dominitan banished people to Patmos in Dio Cassius, a Roman historian who lived 150-235 AD.
A subscription in 2 Syriac versions of Revelation states that John was exiled by Nero....this is written 400 years after Revelation was written, 300 years after the statement by Irenaeus. And the earlier manuscripts do not have this in the text - like the Codex Sinaiticus (about 300- 340 AD.), the Codex Alexandrinus (450 AD), and the Vulgate (450 AD) and the Codex Basilicus (350 AD).
And your Polycarpus of 508 AD didn't have grounds to say it was under Nero.
Jerome credits Tertullian (160-220 AD) with saying that John was banished to patmos by Dominitan.
And Eusebius used a number of sources for his Ecclesiastical History. Like Hegesippus, who wrote his Memoirs in 150 AD
Victorinus wrote his commentary in 340 AD.
Now why should I take the word of a fellow in 550 AD over all this?
Who wrote that John went from Ephesus to Rome to be banished?
We know that John was banished and then later, when released, he resided in Ephesus.
So let's see, we have Iraenaeus. Tertullian, Eusebius, Victorinus, Hegesippus and back up with Dio Cassius, and I could name more...vs. Polycarpus and later attempts to change the 'it' reference to 'revelation' to a 'he'.
I'm sticking with the later date.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
no we are not finished.you can quote all the garbage you can dredge up.as for me i believe in the word of God as it is written,not spiritulized or twisted to try and prove a doctrine from hell.you are blind to the truth because you chose to believe lies.
Upvote
0
- Feb 24, 2002
- 15,534
- 4,827
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You are no literalist roadie.roadie432002 said:
You spiritualize the bible all over the place to suit your theology.
You can be the pot that calls the kettle black all you want, but you're not foolin anyone.
Upvote
0
- Feb 24, 2002
- 15,534
- 4,827
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
FreeinChrist said:
Proving nothing.
The apostles own flocks erred extensively, as recorded for us throughout the NT. Your notion that because Ireneaus was a student of a student of an apostle, then he must be right, is baseless and of no merit.
Besides, Ireneaus spoke of "ancient copies" of Revelation that he knew of.
If he knew about copies that he considered "ancient", then the original itself must pre date those "ancient copies".
Also, Ireneaus believed and taught that Christ lived to be 50 years old.
Do you also agree with him on this point?
The best scholarchip favors the early date.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,076
- 17,411
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Do you have a quote by Iraeneaus about this?parousia70 said:
And Eusebius gave Josephus alot of credit too...
We've been around this before. The thread got closed. I don't see any proof for the early date.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
