When was the Book of Revelation written?

[David Kent]

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

Well he didn't dis he?. WE assume from the number of passovers mentioned he was 3 and as he was born in the autumn and died in the spring that he was 33½. That would fit in with Jesus being cut of in the midst ot the week. That is in the midst of the prophetic week and also the literal week.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

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

Sorry I misinterpreted your post. Must by my confirmation bias. (Hope you are laughing a bit...was intended as a joke.)

 

[AFrazier]

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 easliy 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

I have no problem understanding the beasts/beast. They are very clearly the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece. Then the fourth beast is a combination of the three, more terrible than any of those that had come before it, just as Rome was comprised of all the empires before it, but was far more terrible, and who could make war with the beast?

The three unclean spirits are frogs. Not because French royalty has three frogs on its standard, but because frogs, by a biblical interpretation, represent plague (Exodus 8:2-13). The three unclean spirits were a plague on the people.

Your interpretation is incredibly arbitrary. There are three spirits that are like frogs. So the frogs are the French royalty, but the frogs are also Liberté, égalité, fraternité, which opposed the French royalty, essentially making the frogs the nation of France, singular, whereas the Revelation has three spirits, not one, derived from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. Yet, neither the royalty of France in the 18th century, nor the impetus of the revolution, are derived from the Roman empire (so recognized by its animal composition) in any of its incarnations, or from a blasphemous false prophet.

So I appreciate your point of view, but I'm afraid that I have to reject it. It is not consistent with what we know to be true.

 

[AFrazier]

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

Thank you. I'm sure we can communicate intelligently.

 

[David Kent]

Sorry I misinterpreted your post. Must by my confirmation bias. (Hope you are laughing a bit...was intended as a joke.)

I hadn't noticed. You can always unlike it, I believe. I don't mind.

 

[συνείδησις]

So returning to the point in question, which country do we know as frogs?

Kekistan.

 

[AFrazier]

Well he didn't dis he?. WE assume from the number of passovers mentioned he was 33 and as he was born in the autumn and died in the spring that he was 33½. That would fit in with Jesus being cut of in the midst ot the week. That is in the midst of the prophetic week and also the literal week.

I'm going to stir the pot with this one just a touch ...

I personally think Jesus died at the age of 35, about to be 36. New Testament chronology has been my personal area of expertise and study for almost twenty years now.

I have found, when carefully studying the gospels, that there is a gap between his baptism and ministry. By a Jewish method of counting regnal years, Jesus would have turned thirty in 28 CE. His crucifixion, relative to the day of the week and other factors, took place in 34 CE. Only two of the three Passovers mentioned in the gospels are during his ministry proper. The first was prior, when his "time was not yet." He didn't begin his actual ministry until after John the baptist was put in prison. So if he turned thirty in 28 CE, then he would have turned thirty-six in 34 CE, though he didn't quite make it to his birthday, which I expect was in or around late May or some time in June, per Luke.

Don't know how that fits into the whole "cut off in the midst of the week" dynamic, but historically, he was very likely 35 years old when he was crucified.

I'm happy to elaborate as necessary and desired.

 

[David Kent]

Your interpretation is incredibly arbitrary. There are three spirits that are like frogs. So the frogs are the French royalty, but the frogs are also Liberté, égalité, fraternité, which opposed the French royalty, essentially making the frogs the nation of France, singular, whereas the Revelation has three spirits, not one, derived from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. Yet, neither the royalty of France in the 18th century, nor the impetus of the revolution, are derived from the Roman empire (so recognized by its animal composition) in any of its incarnations, or from a blasphemous false prophet.

Not so. In the historist teaching it comes just at the point of the French Revolution.
An interesting book (as well as others) can be found here.Through the British Museum with the Bible

 

[David Kent]

I'm going to stir the pot with this one just a touch ...

I personally think Jesus died at the age of 35, about to be 36. New Testament chronology has been my personal area of expertise and study for almost twenty years now.

I have found, when carefully studying the gospels, that there is a gap between his baptism and ministry. By a Jewish method of counting regnal years, Jesus would have turned thirty in 28 CE. His crucifixion, relative to the day of the week and other factors, took place in 34 CE. Only two of the three Passovers mentioned in the gospels are during his ministry proper. The first was prior, when his "time was not yet." He didn't begin his actual ministry until after John the baptist was put in prison. So if he turned thirty in 28 CE, then he would have turned thirty-six in 34 CE, though he didn't quite make it to his birthday, which I expect was in or around late May or some time in June, per Luke.

Don't know how that fits into the whole "cut off in the midst of the week" dynamic, but historically, he was very likely 35 years old when he was crucified.

I'm happy to elaborate as necessary and desired.

I don't think that would be a fruitful discussion.

 

[AFrazier]

I don't think that would be a fruitful discussion.

We don't have to discuss it. But if you don't mind saying so, why do you believe it would not be fruitful?

 

[claninja]

Well he didn't dis he?. WE assume from the number of passovers mentioned he was 3 and as he was born in the autumn and died in the spring that he was 33½. That would fit in with Jesus being cut of in the midst ot the week. That is in the midst of the prophetic week and also the literal week.

I agree that Jesus was crucified at age 33-34.

Irenaeus,however, wrote that Jesus lived into ‘old age’:

“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 Gospeland all the elders testify;”

Irenaeus is arguing against those who believed Jesus was crucified around 30 years old:

“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”

 

[David Kent]

I agree that Jesus was crucified at age 33-34.

Irenaeus,however, wrote that Jesus lived into ‘old age’:

“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 Gospeland all the elders testify;”

Irenaeus is arguing against those who believed Jesus was crucified around 30 years old:

“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”

Regardless of that, no early writer contradicted him and they all agreed with the late date. The church would have known when John was exiled. They would not have had to rely on anyone else.

 

[Biblewriter]

Those he spoke to either died before it happened or saw it. His return was in Judgement of Israel and that generation saw it.
Dont believe that God doesn’t understand the passing of time and it’s quantification. When Jesus said “soon” it happened soon. The question is what was “it.”

There is a distinct difference between “he shall send forth his armies and destroy those murders and burn up their city” and “behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him.”

 

[Biblewriter]

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?

The EXTENSIVE documentation I provided in this very thread PROVED that this is simply not correct. I demonstrated the proof that the various writers based their comments on at least four independent original sources of information.

 

[Biblewriter]

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

No Jesus rose only three days after the crucifixion, and stayed only forty days after that. Irenaeus simply made a mistake. There are almost no ancient documents that do not contain such flagrant errors.

I can personally speak authoritatively on this, for I have personally devoted well over forty years to an extrnsive study of ancient writings.

 

[claninja]

Regardless of that, no early writer contradicted him and they all agreed with the late date. The church would have known when John was exiled. They would not have had to rely on anyone else.

See Biblewriter’s post #275

No Jesus rose only three days after the crucifixion, and stayed only forty days after that. Irenaeus simply made a mistake. There are almost no ancient documents that do not contain such flagrant errors.

 

[claninja]

There is a distinct difference between “he shall send forth his armies and destroy those murders and burn up their city” and “behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him.”

So there is a difference between this:

40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard COMES, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”
Matthew 21:40-41 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 21:40-41 - English Standard Version

And this?:

7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
Matthew 22:7 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 22:7 - English Standard Version

These are about 2 different events?

 

[Biblewriter]

So there is a difference between this:

40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard COMES, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”
Matthew 21:40-41 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 21:40-41 - English Standard Version

And this?:

7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
Matthew 22:7 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 22:7 - English Standard Version

These are about 2 different events?

No.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can answer the question. John tells us himself.

Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There is a distinct difference between “he shall send forth his armies and destroy those murders and burn up their city” and “behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him.”

The first statement was a part of a parable, not a prophesy. It would be like comparing a sentence in the parable of the lost sheep with Revelation as though both predict particular events.