When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Biblewriter]

Where is futurism addressed in this? This is pretty much someone talking about Victorinus' writing, as far as I can see. He keeps saying what Victorinus said and not him saying it. Otherwise he has read it and decided what it all means, which misses the whole point in my view.

I have already posted the letter by Jerome, in which he plainly stated that he had modified the original text of Victorinus to remove its millenniarian views. And I also posted two links to the original text of Victorinus.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have already posted the letter by Jerome, in which he plainly stated that he had modified the original text of Victorinus to remove its millenniarian views. And I also posted two links to the original text of Victorinus.

I do not see the link, sorry. From reading what you posted on the previous page, I have do not know their millenial views. They obviously have one, but what it is I cannot tell. If the author is correct, Jerome modified it which means he did not agree with it, I assume.

Frankly speaking, the content is mostly the man making up what he thinks the details mean independent of the text itself. Not that the points are invalid, but the imagery is to give a certain impression and he finds some spiritual meaning to it all instead of seeing it for what it was, IMHO. So I am not convinced the author being discussed had much insight as to the text. Most certainly nothing from anyone who knew John or knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who heard John talk about it.

I saw nothing futuristic in it because the author obviously being a futurist. I suspect if the subject being discussed really had futuristic views of any weight, they would be posted. Otherwise it sounds pretty much like every Tom, Dick and Harry nowadays telling us who Bablyon is and who the Antichrist is and who the harlot is. Of course, the text itself is often ignored in these guesses.

So my conclusion is the guys centuries ago might also not have figured out the answer. It might be that they knew nothing about the fall of Jerusalem in detail. That information is important in understanding the text same as knowing the details of Jesus conception, birth and so on are important to understand the prophesy of him in the OT. If one never knew he was in Egypt or born in Bethlehem, one would be missing important information.

 

[claninja]

My first observation is actually a question. Are you a student of the Greek language, and do you actually have a copy of the original Greek, as composed by Irenaeus, or are you simply parroting what someone else said?

So basically, what are my qualifications for understanding Greek? Or do I have a degree in Ancient Greek?

No degree in ancient Greek. Just like to study it in my free time.

And yes, I am ‘parroting’. I had to have learned it from somewhere. I don’t claim to be the first to address the translational issues Irenaeus’ statement.

Are you the first person to put together evidence for post 70ad? Or are you ‘paroting’ from someone else’s work?

You are avoiding the FACT which I PROVED, which is NOT that any of these other writers was correct, but that they did NOT base their accounts on what Irenaeus said, as you and others have claimed.

So we know 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, that Victorinus, the acts of John, and Jerome didn’t have any influence from Irenaeus and none of the information they received was influenced by Irenaeus?

 

[Biblewriter]

I do not see the link, sorry. From reading what you posted on the previous page, I have do not know their millenial views. They obviously have one, but what it is I cannot tell. If the author is correct, Jerome modified it which means he did not agree with it, I assume.

Frankly speaking, the content is mostly the man making up what he thinks the details mean independent of the text itself. Not that the points are invalid, but the imagery is to give a certain impression and he finds some spiritual meaning to it all instead of seeing it for what it was, IMHO. So I am not convinced the author being discussed had much insight as to the text. Most certainly nothing from anyone who knew John or knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who heard John talk about it.

I saw nothing futuristic in it because the author obviously being a futurist. I suspect if the subject being discussed really had futuristic views of any weight, they would be posted. Otherwise it sounds pretty much like every Tom, Dick and Harry nowadays telling us who Bablyon is and who the Antichrist is and who the harlot is. Of course, the text itself is often ignored in these guesses.

So my conclusion is the guys centuries ago might also not have figured out the answer. It might be that they knew nothing about the fall of Jerusalem in detail. That information is important in understanding the text same as knowing the details of Jesus conception, birth and so on are important to understand the prophesy of him in the OT. If one never knew he was in Egypt or born in Bethlehem, one would be missing important information.

Do you even imagine, that you, who lives about 1950 years later, know the details of the fall of Jerusalem better than Irenaeus,who is thought to have been born only 60 years after it happened?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Do you even imagine, that you, who lives about 1950 years later, know the details of the fall of Jerusalem better than Irenaeus,who is thought to have been born only 60 years after it happened?

Did he write about it? Do you know the details of all the events in the world in place far away from you? In your lifetime, not say, WWII which was in the lifetime of your parents? If he did not write about it, he did not know. How would he know?

But the details match the descriptions in Daniel and Revelation so much so that it is as amazing as the details of Is 53 matching the life and calling of Christ.

 

[Biblewriter]

So basically, what are my qualifications for understanding Greek? Or do I have a degree in Ancient Greek?

No degree in ancient Greek. Just like to study it in my free time.

And yes, I am ‘parroting’. I had to have learned it from somewhere. I don’t claim to be the first to address the translational issues Irenaeus’ statement.

Are you the first person to put together evidence for post 70ad? Or are you ‘paroting’ from someone else’s work?

Actually, everything I have posted here is something I have personally found in the translated copies of what the ancient teachers actually wrote. I have personally devoted about 45 years to the study of ancient documents, and approximately ten of these years has been in the study of the teachings of ancient Christian writers.

So we know 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, that Victorinus, the acts of John, and Jerome didn’t have any influence from Irenaeus and none of the information they received was influenced by Irenaeus?

I never claimed that these later writers were not even influenced by Irenaeus. But what I PROVED, beyond any possibliity of rational debate, is that they did not JUST base their opinions on what Irenaeus said.

 

[Biblewriter]

Did he write about it? Do you know the details of all the events in the world in place far away from you? In your lifetime, not say, WWII which was in the lifetime of your parents? If he did not write about it, he did not know. How would he know?

But the details match the descriptions in Daniel and Revelation so much so that it is as amazing as the details of Is 53 matching the life and calling of Christ.

Actually, I have personally studied what Josephus, and many other ancient writers, said. (As i noted above, I have devoted approxiatelt 45 years to this study.) And I personally know that the details of what Josephus said do not even come close to matching the details of what the Revelation says.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, I have personally studied what Josephus, and many other ancient writers, said. (As i noted above, I have devoted approxiatelt 45 years to this study.) And I personally know that the details of what Josephus said do not even come close to matching the details of what the Revelation says.

Those who say they do have given examples of what he described and what Revelation says for the reader to judge for themselves. So I am afraid that the passages quoted out of both texts match pretty well.

That you do not see it does not mean it is not there. The Jews, after all, knew the scripture well and many of them did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They would say that they personally know the details of the Old Testament and what Jesus is does not even come close to the what the details of the Messiah ought to be. So I am afraid that you not seeing it is not that unusual. Lots of people have not seen in the Bible what Jesus actually said is fullfilled in their hearing. They disagreed with Jesus who was the expert.

With all due respect, Biblewriter. I suspect you might not want to talk to me anymore and I cannot blame you. But I have a question.

Do you think anything Jesus said in Matthew 24 applies to 70 AD Israel? Just wondered.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, everything I have posted here is something I have personally found in the translated copies of what the ancient teachers actually wrote. I have personally devoted about 45 years to the study of ancient documents, and approximately ten of these years has been in the study of the teachings of ancient Christian writers.

I am puzzled why you provide what others say the ancient documents say. Why don't you say what they say with supporting quotes? Not quotes of others who talk about them, but the real deal.

I never claimed that these later writers were not even influenced by Irenaeus. But what I PROVED, beyond any possibliity of rational debate, is that they did not JUST base their opinions on what Irenaeus said.

You did not prove anything. Frankly speaking, you bring your whole position into question by not recognizing that you offer no proof at all. Do you know everything Irenaeus wrote including lost documents? Do you realize that people do sometimes make up stuff? Now this, if it occured, releases the other men from getting their stuff from Irenaeus, but the reliabity has not increased by having no supporting documents including Irenaeus.

In any case, your whole position rests on what others say. That is it. And some of what they say was way off. It is easy to think men in the past where somehow closer to the truth by living within centures of the events. I am not sure that we would see any old American as totally reliable as to the events in 1776 just because we are living within 300 years of the events and we have better access to information than men did in 300 AD.

 

[Biblewriter]

Those who say they do have given examples of what he described and what Revelation says for the reader to judge for themselves. So I am afraid that the passages quoted out of both texts match pretty well.

"They match pretty well" is not grounds for claiming a prophecy has been fulfilled. Any and every prophecy that has actually been fulfilled has been fulfilled completely, in all of its details. For that is the test of a prophet of God.

"And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'-- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

With all due respect, Biblewriter. I suspect you might not want to talk to me anymore and I cannot blame you. But I have a question.

Do you think anything Jesus said in Matthew 24 applies to 70 AD Israel? Just wondered.

In Matthew 24, only verse 2 speaks of A.D. 70, as does Luke 21:6. The actual prophecy about the events of A.D. 70 is in Like 21, particularly verses 20-24:

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

These verses are missing from the Matthew account.

 

[Biblewriter]

I am puzzled why you provide what others say the ancient documents say. Why don't you say what they say with supporting quotes? Not quotes of others who talk about them, but the real deal.
You did not prove anything. Frankly speaking, you bring your whole position into question by not recognizing that you offer no proof at all. Do you know everything Irenaeus wrote including lost documents? Do you realize that people do sometimes make up stuff? Now this, if it occured, releases the other men from getting their stuff from Irenaeus, but the reliabity has not increased by having no supporting documents including Irenaeus.

In any case, your whole position rests on what others say. That is it. And some of what they say was way off. It is easy to think men in the past where somehow closer to the truth by living within centures of the events. I am not sure that we would see any old American as totally reliable as to the events in 1776 just because we are living within 300 years of the events and we have better access to information than men did in 300 AD.

No one has the actual ancient documents that any of these men wrote. We only have copies of copies of these documents. Some of them are in the original languages, and some of them are translations. The people whose word you depend upon have not examined these ancient documents, nor has any other living person.

But a translation of what the oldest and best copies of these ancient documents said is all anyone can rely upon. What I was condemning was simply accepting the extracts published by writers who advance views you favor. This is not studying the ancient documents. But studying translations of the documents themselves into our language is indeed studying what they actually said.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No one has the actual ancient documents that any of these men wrote. We only have copies of copies of these documents. some of them are in the original languages, and some of them are translations. The "scholars" whose word you depend upon have not examined these ancient documents, nor has any other living person.

You misunderstand me. I was not asking for originals. If you have studied these men, have you only studied what others said about them? Nothing that they originally wrote or then translations, of course, without comment from others about what they wrote? You claim to have studied this stuff for decades. Anyone who has done that ought to be able to give quotes and not cut and paste what others have said who studied these things.

But a translation of what the oldest and best copies of these ancient documents is all anyone can rely upon. What I was condemning was simply accepting the extracts published by writers who advance views you favor, is not studying the ancient documents. But studying translations into our language is indeed studying what they actually said.

But all you gave me were the extracts published by writesr who advance the view you favor. You offered no cut and paste of translations of the original author. ANd what extracts did I offer you? I cut and pasted a bit out of a post here on the site, what someone else had cut and pasted because it showed the unreliablity of Irenaeus. Was revealing.

So if you studied what they said, give us some and not a link and not what someone else had to say about what they think they said. This is heresay.

 

[Biblewriter]

I am puzzled why you provide what others say the ancient documents say. Why don't you say what they say with supporting quotes? Not quotes of others who talk about them, but the real deal.

Actually, that is exactly what I did. Absolutely nothing of what I quoted was from someone's opinion of what they meant. Without a single exception, everything I quoted is something that I personally copied out from what these men actually wrote.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You posted links to Victorius but cut and pasted an article about what some guys claims Vic said. That is not original. Maybe I missed something you posted but that one was what someone said Vic said. Not the man's original work.

 

[Biblewriter]

But all you gave me were the extracts published by writesr who advance the view you favor. You offered no cut and paste of translations of the original author. ANd what extracts did I offer you? I cut and pasted a bit out of a post here on the site, what someone else had cut and pasted because it showed the unreliablity of Irenaeus. Was revealing.

This is absolutely incorrect. everything I posted was an actual cut and paste from English translations of the ancient documents themselves. Not a single word of it was from an article that anyone else wrote. Every word of itwas my own personal report of what I personally found in these ancient documents.

Just a few days ago, a well known scholar personally wrote to me that, in preparing for a book he was writing on the same subject, he had only personally found about 30% of what I had found. (He was asking for permission to quote my research.)

 

[Biblewriter]

You posted links to Victorius but cut and pasted an article about what some guys claims Vic said. That is not original. Maybe I missed something you posted but that one was what someone said Vic said. Not the man's original work.

The article I cut and pasted about what Victorinus said, was written by Jerome. The reason I posted that was to prove that Jerome had personally admitted that he had changed the words of Victorinus. Then I gave links to the original commentary by Victorinus and the revised version by Jerome.

You need to read more carefully.

 

[AFrazier]

I’ll throw in another problem. One of Nero’s name was close to Domitian, Domitius or something like that.

I've been hearing this, but I'm not sure where it's coming from. His proper name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

 

[AFrazier]

Have you personally examined the Greek text composed by Irenaeus, and are you sufficiently familiar with the Greek language to evaluate this claim, or are you simply relying on what someone else said?

Yes, I have personally examined the Greek text, and yes, I am sufficiently familiar with the Greek language. Enough to know that a preposition in Greek doesn't determine word relationships. Person, number, gender, and declension determine association.

 

[David Kent]

Why do you say she was sound? The first pontifux maximus was Constatine who brought into the christian church all the pagan trappings we see today. And

The first pont max was Julius Cæsar

 

[AFrazier]

And Futurism?

I believe there was a time when the Revelation was meant for the future, until the day that it became a thing of the past.

Seriously, though ... I was a Dispensationalist once upon a time. I believed that the Revelation was absolutely a thing of the future. But there were certain passages of scripture that I just couldn't ignore. And personally, I think any person evaluating the two positions objectively will ultimately come to a Preterist point of view.

Obviously, I expect you to disagree with that sentiment. And that's okay with me. I don't think that salvation hinges on one's eschatological point of view. So everyone here is good by me in their disagreement.