When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Dorothy Mae]

According to Irenaeus, what did Jesus possess?


but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

The "which" in the sentence refers to the last statement in the sentence which is "declining towards old age." So he thought Jesus was getting old when he taught. I would suspect he did not know the age when Jesus started to teach, how long he taught nor did he have much access to the Gospels that talked of this. Seems like he went by heresay.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In order to claim that the prophecies fit historic events perfectly, it is necessary to pretend that the details of most prophecies are simply not important.

Not at all. But it does require one read the details of the events of 65-70 AD more or less. The details fit perfectly. But one needs to know the history, that is true. Fits the book of Daniel as well.

Why was it that the Christian writers who wrote so soon after A.D. 70, were very confident that these scriptures spoke of events that were in their own futures? Because than knew that the details of what had happened did not fit the details of the prophecies.

Please provide the writings of Christians who escaped Jerusalem 70-75 AD so we can examing if they had no idea why they left Jerusalem not connecting the move at all with the warning Jesus gave. The Christians who were there, mind you, since you claim 70AD as the starting point of them not knowing a thing about the prophesies of Jesus being fulfilled before them. Who and where did they write that Matt 24 and Rev was future as they fled Jerusalem after it was surrounded by armies...guess they got lucky instead of being warned by Jesus.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You just gave the long-winded version of what I already said earlier. It's confirmation bias. They see what they want to see in the evidence presented to them. If it supports their conclusions, then it is good evidence. If it does not, then it is unreliable evidence.

Like I said, good thing for the Christians in 70Ad that they did not think the warning of Jesus to leave was merely confirmation bias.

I did a bit of reading on the opposite opinion and this is how it lays out:
Those who see the details of 65-70Ad as matching Rev including how long the persecution lasted (exact number predicted) and so on have a "confirmation bias." I supposed reading Isaiah 53 is doing so with a confirmation bias since we see the description fits Jesus. Is that a "confirmation bias" as well? Not to mention him being born in Bethlehem but coming also out of Egypt. And then there is the confirmation bias of Mary delvering a son being still a virgin....man that is really a confirmation bias. Come to think of it, the whole Bible prophesy is one big confirmation bias. I mean if you see the details being lived out before you, like Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, then you got a "confirmation bias."

Those who do not see the details of Rev living out in 65-70 AD rely totally on what unspired men or really just one man wrote. That is it. One man and others quoting him. A man who wrote that Jesus was a teacher who taught into old age and died at 40-50 years old which is supposed to be in the Gospels. But hey, better believe one guy who couldn't get the Gospel info right than see prophesy being fulfilled and be caught in "confirmation bias." (Some see your "confirmation bias" as seeing what happened and praise God for his fulfillment of prophesy same as in Isaiah 53.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Do you Preterists, or for that matter Futurists, believe that God had nothing to say to his children through the centuries of tribulation they have endured. The book of Revelation is addressed to seven churches, representing the entire church. It is written to the church and it concerns the church. Remember it is a signified book. Told by signs. It is not literal. If you assume it is literal you make nonsense of it.

• Revelation 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
• 4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

The Lord sent the Revelation to His servants to comfort them through the dark ages of great tribulation. This it did.

I have read two writers of the past who said they did not understand Revelation until they read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire then they saw the visions accurately depicted in history. So accurate was it, they said, that had it not been that Gibbon was a scoffer of Christianity, they would have not believed that it was an accurate history.

You forget that we think the whole of the Bible was written to his children down through the centuries and that it is true and happens before our eyes at times.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Soon, in human terms, or soon, in divine terms? It also says that the return of Jesus to reward his own would be soon. But it has not happened.

I would encourage you to look into the different words used for "coming" of which we only have one. Jesus told the Sanhedrin that they would see him coming in the clouds. Was he lying? No, because "coming in the clouds" was the Jewish/Hebrew description for judgement. And they did. Within their generation Jesus "came" in judgement and Jerusalem was totally destroyed and they saw it. So he came. That is, he came in judgement. Jesus threatened Ephesus with the same coming and he did that as well. No one lives in Ephesus today. It is only a ruin. He judged them and destroyed them. So there are different words for coming and when he said "soon" he meant soon and within 10 years max, he came and destroyyed what is called "Sodom" in Revelation, where our Lord was crucified. We tend to think only of the second coming. There is more than one type.

"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

So in God's timing, it has now been only a couple of days since He said that.

No, God knows the passage of time. Jesus came in judgement as he said he would. The "soon" in the Gospels and in Revelation refered to the coming judgement of Jerusalem, and that happened within that generation.

But I know the above argument. It is really, rather silly. It means when God uses words to talk to men, God either doesn't know the language very well, not k now what "soon" means to us, or is tricky deliberatly telling his own children information meant to deceive and fool them. What good is it to tell your children that something is happening soon when it is not soon to them. Daniel was told his vision was not soon and it wasn't. To the christians who heard the "soon" it meant be watchful and it was necessary. Jesus came within 40 years of his teaching them soon (came in judgement, that is.) He will come again (Perusia) but that is a different coming which no one knows the date or hour. That we do not need to watch for since we can do nothing to prepare that we do not do already in a life that is lived to please Him. But when we warned about coming in judgment, then watching out was necessary. That is how I see it, anyway.

 

[συνείδησις]

Even worse. The man thought Jesus was possessing old age. He even said the the Gospels and "all" the elders testify of. Thanks for the quote. Worse that was reported. Iraneaus thought Jesus was an old man and thought the Gospels said so along with the elders. This is not a difficult piece of information to obtain, his age when he ministered, and yet the guy missed it by a mile. Puts all the rest that he wrote about the history of the church in a questionable light. And the fact that he did not know the Gospels makes it worse. He is a very unreliable source for historical information for sure.

IMO your comment shows ignorance or ill intent because in the immediately preceding sentence Iraneaus wrote that Jesus died while in his thirties.

On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

IMO your comment shows ignorance or ill intent because in the immediately preceding sentence Iraneaus wrote that Jesus died while in his thirties.

Here is the post I responded to:

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

I see nothing that you claim. And since you left out this supposed quote but did not hesitate to ad hominem me, I doubt there is anything serious to reconsider. Rather odd that the wrote that Jesus possessed old age that starts 40th-50th year. Was the author so unreliable that he forgot the "preceding sentence?"

 

[Erik Nelson]

No, they are based on the multiplied statements of many ancient sources, at least four of which contain details which indicate at least four different ultimate (and now lost) sources of information. This is better authentication than most of the events of ancient history. For the majority of the accepted "facts" about ancient history are based upon less than four ancient witnesses.

maybe the risen, resurrected Jesus was observed publicly last around 50 AD, about the time of the crucial Jerusalem council ?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, they are based on the multiplied statements of many ancient sources, at least four of which contain details which indicate at least four different ultimate (and now lost) sources of information. This is better authentication than most of the events of ancient history. For the majority of the accepted "facts" about ancient history are based upon less than four ancient witnesses.

Actually only one. The others quoted him. And the rest of what he wrote was off. Lost texts can say whatever one wants as they are lost. Odd that the lost information is better authentication than the history of the Jews wars that match John's description of the future for him does not. Well, if losts texts are better than known history for you, what can one say?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Irenaeus claimed that Jesus was nearly fifty, (Iren. Adv. Haer. 2.22.5-6).

But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” (John 8:56, 57) Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

The reference to 50 years in John, 8, May refer back to the reference of 47 years in John, 2, namely the 47 years of the physical temple of Herod

maybe they were still smarting about Jesus's comment. About being greater than a 47 year old massive temple project. So when he mentioned Abraham. They immediately quipped. You're not even as old as our temple much less as old as our father, Abraham.

 

[Erik Nelson]

• Daniel 7: 25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Christians would be given into the hand of the little hon for that time. Same as the similar periods in Revelation.

maybe Diocletian?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The reference to 50 years in John, 8, May refer back to the reference of 47 years in John, 2, namely the 47 years of the physical temple of Herod

maybe they were still smarting about Jesus's comment. About being greater than a 47 year old massive temple project. So when he mentioned Abraham. They immediately quipped. You're not even as old as our temple much less as old as our father, Abraham.

The quote from Irenaeus presents rather convulted analysis. The author purports to know the mind of the jews disputing with Jesus regarding the statment Jesus made of Abraham. He does not present any reason for his assumption of knowing their mind. Is this the reason he thought Jesus was 40-50? Based on the Jews accusation of him? That is pretty shakey but maybe I do not get the awkwardly phrased meaning (Irenaeus, not you.)

In any case, one cannot make a case that Jesus was 40-50 based on what the Jews accused him of since his age was actually known. Irenaeus did not seem to know his information on things that we do know about. Makes it hard to accept his view on other matters in the face of contradicting scripture.

 

[claninja]

IMO your comment shows ignorance or ill intent because in the immediately preceding sentence Iraneaus wrote that Jesus died while in his thirties.

Read the whole context. Irenaeus is writing against those that believed jesus died at 30.

“they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age,”


5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,Luke 3:23 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age.

 

[AFrazier]

Like I said, good thing for the Christians in 70Ad that they did not think the warning of Jesus to leave was merely confirmation bias.

I did a bit of reading on the opposite opinion and this is how it lays out:
Those who see the details of 65-70Ad as matching Rev including how long the persecution lasted (exact number predicted) and so on have a "confirmation bias." I supposed reading Isaiah 53 is doing so with a confirmation bias since we see the description fits Jesus. Is that a "confirmation bias" as well? Not to mention him being born in Bethlehem but coming also out of Egypt. And then there is the confirmation bias of Mary delvering a son being still a virgin....man that is really a confirmation bias. Come to think of it, the whole Bible prophesy is one big confirmation bias. I mean if you see the details being lived out before you, like Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, then you got a "confirmation bias."

Those who do not see the details of Rev living out in 65-70 AD rely totally on what unspired men or really just one man wrote. That is it. One man and others quoting him. A man who wrote that Jesus was a teacher who taught into old age and died at 40-50 years old which is supposed to be in the Gospels. But hey, better believe one guy who couldn't get the Gospel info right than see prophesy being fulfilled and be caught in "confirmation bias." (Some see your "confirmation bias" as seeing what happened and praise God for his fulfillment of prophesy same as in Isaiah 53.)

I almost get the impression that you're disagreeing with me when I'm not disagreeing with you. lol

Confirmation bias is "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." In the case of this discussion, Irenaeus making a statement that can be interpreted to mean that the Revelation was seen in the reign of Domitian is a matter of confirmation bias. That specific interpretation supports their belief. But the alternate and objective point of view, that it can be interpreted differently, is dismissed, because they are biased towards their own conclusions. Ergo, their interpretation confirms their bias.

I'm not sure that a conclusion based on a definitive statement of fact can be considered biased.

 

[AFrazier]

The reference to 50 years in John, 8, May refer back to the reference of 47 years in John, 2, namely the 47 years of the physical temple of Herod

maybe they were still smarting about Jesus's comment. About being greater than a 47 year old massive temple project. So when he mentioned Abraham. They immediately quipped. You're not even as old as our temple much less as old as our father, Abraham.

This is certainly possible. It's also possible that Irenaeus' logic was flawed. It may have simply been a statement of cultural fact, that a man wasn't considered wise until he attained to the age of fifty, and Jesus was clearly not yet fifty, regardless of just how old he was at the time of the statement.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I almost get the impression that you're disagreeing with me when I'm not disagreeing with you. lol

Confirmation bias is "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." In the case of this discussion, Irenaeus making a statement that can be interpreted to mean that the Revelation was seen in the reign of Domitian is a matter of confirmation bias. That specific interpretation supports their belief. But the alternate and objective point of view, that it can be interpreted differently, is dismissed, because they are biased towards their own conclusions. Ergo, their interpretation confirms their bias.

I'm not sure that a conclusion based on a definitive statement of fact can be considered biased.

OK, but I think it leaves out the strength of the new evidence on its own. In science, we find confirmation of a theory (if that occurs) but do not consider that a bias. There is evidence and there is interpretation of evidence and the difference lies in the obvious nature of the evidence. If one believes Jesus was talking about the fall of Jerusalem in 33 AD and told the believers to leave when the city was surrounded by armies, and the city IS surrounded by armies in 70AD , this is more than a bias to think that was the sign he was talking about. Being surrounded by armies is pretty unusual if they leave so one can get out of town. So I would made a distinction between a bias in viewing the evidence and simply understanding the obvious nature of the matter. Who the Beast ist can qualify as bias when deciding. When to get the heck out of Dodge because armies are surrouding it is not.

But perhaps I did not understand you as you mean.

 

[AFrazier]

OK, but I think it leaves out the strength of the new evidence on its own. In science, we find confirmation of a theory (if that occurs) but do not consider that a bias. There is evidence and there is interpretation of evidence and the difference lies in the obvious nature of the evidence. If one believes Jesus was talking about the fall of Jerusalem in 33 AD and told the believers to leave when the city was surrounded by armies, and the city IS surrounded by armies in 70AD , this is more than a bias to think that was the sign he was talking about. Being surrounded by armies is pretty unusual if they leave so one can get out of town. So I would made a distinction between a bias in viewing the evidence and simply understanding the obvious nature of the matter. Who the Beast ist can qualify as bias when deciding. When to get the heck out of Dodge because armies are surrouding it is not.

But perhaps I did not understand you as you mean.

You and I are on the same page. I am of a preterist persuasion. I believe that the destruction of Jerusalem is what Jesus foretold, and what the Revelation portends.

Confirmation bias only exists in the vacuum of subjectivity. There is no bias in coming to an educated conclusion based upon the consideration of facts, both direct and circumstantial. It's when one refuses to objectively consider all possible conclusions in favor of a predetermined and unmovable position that the confirmation provided by the facts can be considered biased.

I don't believe that the combined information of the siege, the "eagles," the city divided into three parts, the number of Nero's name, the proper use of the word "soon," the natural interpretation of "this generation," every stone of the temple being pulled down, Christians fleeing to Pella, three and a half years of tribulation, death by the sword, famine, pestilence, and so many other things, can be considered "biased" when they all inevitably point towards an undeniable conclusion.

 

[David Kent]

Or when the Revelation says that three unclean spirits like frogs came forth, and the city was divided into three parts as great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to taste his wrath, you might conclude ... whatever it is that futurists believe concerning this, or you can interpret this biblically and historically as the three men who became a plague to the people of Jerusalem and divided the city internally into three factions during the siege of Titus, per Josephus, Wars 5.2, 21-26.

In prophecy God uses animals and attributes that describe their attributes or that the countries use as their motif.

For instance.

• Daniel 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

This is easily recognisable as Babylon from their carvings, many are in the British Museum

• Daniel 7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
• 6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.

The next two can easily be recognised by their descriptions as the Medes and Persians, latterly the Persians and Medes.

So returning to the point in question, which country do we know as frogs?
Unless you are completely out of touch, you must answer France.

• 
  
  
  • Revelation 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Three frogs was the former Roal Standard oy the French kings. The unclean spirits were the humanist cries of Liberté, égalité, fraternité. All very high sounding, but were formulated by the basest of men, and have done untold damage to France and the world. It spawned the reign of terrror, revolutions all over the world and the secularisation of France

 

[David Kent]

Okay, calling my answer "mish-mash" is unnecessary. Sounds like you are a man of age. You should know better than to insult by now. Objective discussion is facts and rebuttal. We don't have to agree. But I don't expect my reading and research to be snubbed any more than you do.

OK I agree I was out of order, I apologise.

 

[David Kent]

OK, but I think it leaves out the strength of the new evidence on its own. In science, we find confirmation of a theory (if that occurs) but do not consider that a bias. There is evidence and there is interpretation of evidence and the difference lies in the obvious nature of the evidence. If one believes Jesus was talking about the fall of Jerusalem in 33 AD and told the believers to leave when the city was surrounded by armies, and the city IS surrounded by armies in 70AD , this is more than a bias to think that was the sign he was talking about. Being surrounded by armies is pretty unusual if they leave so one can get out of town. So I would made a distinction between a bias in viewing the evidence and simply understanding the obvious nature of the matter. Who the Beast ist can qualify as bias when deciding. When to get the heck out of Dodge because armies are surrouding it is not.

But perhaps I did not understand you as you mean.

I think it is only futurists that will disagree with you. Historicists have always believed that, long before præterism was born.