When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Biblewriter]

Maybe we are not talking about the same post. Can you tell me what page it is on? I did not find any links in the bit by Elliot, either post. And uh, if Jerome changes the words that Vic wrote, what else did he change without bothering to tell us? The problem is, when a translator changes the words and only later admits it, it means that we cannot trust his work. That is a character flaw that he allows himself to edit what he is supposed to be translating and only some time later admits it. His whole work is then dubious.

As I told you before, my documentation was presented in posts number 105 to 112 in this thread. And again, as I also told you before,
I only quoted ancient writers. I posted absolutely nothing about Elliot. He was a nineteenth century writer.

As far as the honesty of Jerome, he did not admit to changing what Victorinus wrote "only later," but in the letter with which he originally sent his version of the work of Victorinus to his friend Anatolius, who seems to have requested that he translate it into Latin.

 

[Biblewriter]

OK, they match in the details that are known. The problem is, the Jews read the prophesies of the Messiah and still did not recognize that Jesus fulfilled the details. They don't to this day, most of them. So there have always been those who denied that the prophesies were fulfilled and those who saw the details as fulfilling the prophesies. So your position is not new. Was a position in the day of the fulfillment of prophesies. Just putting some perspective on it. I see the prophesies as being completely filled, those that pertain to the tribulation. If I used "pretty well" I was being conservative. I can use "completely filled" too.

Actually, in most of the "historic fulfillments" claimed by Preterists, no more than 20% of the details in the prophecy match what the ancient historinus wrote. And the comparison of the text of the Revelation to the text of Josephus is no exception to this rule.

Are you refering to Jesus here? That his prophesies did not come to pass and none of those things happened soon? You sure you want to say that?

The reason that most of what Jesus prophesied has not happened yet is because most the events He prophesied were prophesied in regard to the end times, which have not yet come about.

We have already been over the word "soon." Your claim that it means "soon in human terms" is unsupportable.

So of what significance is it that particular verses are missing in Matthew? Does it mean Jesus did not say them? And it is very odd that Jesus is talking about a period of time 2000+ years in the future and suddenly jumps to within 50 years (in your view.) Makes more sense that the whole of the thing up until verse 36 is answering the question as to when the temple will be destroyed, a completely different time period than when he bodily returns. And the events in Matt 24 match the events in Revelation.

That is how I see it anyway.

My point was that the entire account given in Matthew and Mark, along with the first part of the account in Luke, was an answer to the disciple's question, what was, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3)

They asked this after He had told them that the current temple would be completely destroyed. And he answered them in words that, regardless of your assertions, have not yet been fulfilled.

It is only Luke that also reports what Jesus afterward said about the events that were coming in about forty years.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thanks for the input. Nice to read your statement that dispensationalism had a starting date and was unheard of before. Futurism belongs to dispensationalism, I understand. So where does Elliot stand, not that this matters much to us in general?

Dispensationalism existed long before the alleged "starting" date. I am currently working on the final manuscript for a book titled "Ancient Dispensational Doctrine."

And Elliot was a Historicist.

 

[AFrazier]

I have a copy of Eusebius and read it all and don't recall him saying that, would you like to say where he said that.

There were two periods of Eusebius. one under persecution by the emperor and the other under Constantine, and my impression is that he was more reliable before Constantine. Only my impression. Most Christians accepted Constantine at the time, but when Constantine moved the empire to the East, some realised that the restraining power or 2 Thess 2: was being removed. The Waldensians claim that their separation from Rome was at the time of Bishop Sylvester who was Bishop of Rome at the time.

I'm at work at the moment, but I'll quote you the relevant passage when I get home this evening.

 

[claninja]

And my second observation is that it is nothing short of absurd to quibble about whether the Greek word translated "ancient" could refer to copies that were, at a maximum about 90 years old or copies that were, at a maximum, 130 years old.

130 years would be more 'ancient' than 90. If the vision, and not john, was nearly seen, not long ago. Why would Irenaeus call the copies of revelation ancient?

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 you have read what others wrote and formulated an opinion. Your arguments for post 70ad dating are not original. They can be found all over the internet. you have just compiled them nicely into an article. Unless are you the first person to develop the argument for post 70 ad dating, then you are paroting, just like we all are on here.

First you stated they did 'not' base their accounts on what Irenaeus said:

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.

Now you state they did 'not just' base their accounts on what Irenaeus said:

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.

Your entire argument is that these (victorinus, Jerome, and acts of john) are independent original sources:

I demonstrated the proof that the various writers based their comments on at least four independent original sources of information.

so which is it, did they 'not' base their opinions on anything Irenaeus said or did they 'not just' base their opinions? How can they be independent original sources, and yet partially rely on irenaeus as an original source?

 

[claninja]

Actually, in most of the "historic fulfillments" claimed by Preterists, no more than 20% of the details in the prophecy match what the ancient historinus wrote.

What is the source for this 20% claim. I would be really interested in reading it.

The reason that most of what Jesus prophesied has not happened yet is because most the events He prophesied were prophesied in regard to the end times, which have not yet come about.

Was the city and sanctuary not destroyed in 70ad, just as Jesus predicted?

We have already been over the word "soon." Your claim that it means "soon in human terms" is unsupportable.

It is very supportable.

Daniel was told to seal his vision about Persia and Greece because it would not happens for many days (Daniel 8:26). But John was told not to seal it, for it would happen soon (revelation 22:10).

Jesus told his disciples they would see him coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28). Jesus told his disciples, the events of the olivet discourse would happen in their generation (Matthew 24:34)

The disciples believed and taught they were living in the last days (acts 2:16-17), at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:11), and that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18).

 

[Biblewriter]

Your entire argument is that these (victorinus, Jerome, and acts of john) are independent original sources:


so which is it, did they 'not' base their opinions on anything Irenaeus said or did they 'not just' base their opinions? How can they be independent original sources, and yet partially rely on irenaeus as an original source?

I most certainly did not claim that any of these (including Irenaeus) was an "original" source. What I said, (go back and check) was that the original sources each of these used could not have been Irenaeus, for they gave details he did not give. So then HAD to have been depending on a different source. The second time I added the word "just" as a concession to your argument (and here I am using the collective you, "you all") that they may have been influenced by Irenaeus. They may indeed have been infuenced by what he said. We simply do not know abut that, one way or the other. But we absolutely know that each of these was depending on a source other than Irenaeus, and we absolutely know that each of these four witnesses was depending on a source different from any of the other three. For each of them gave details then none of the others gave.

 

[Biblewriter]

Accidental post- deleted by poster

 

[Biblewriter]

What is the source for this 20% claim. I would be really interested in reading it.



Was the city and sanctuary not destroyed in 70ad, just as Jesus predicted?



It is very supportable.

Daniel was told to seal his vision about Persia and Greece because it would not happens for many days (Daniel 8:26). But John was told not to seal it, for it would happen soon (revelation 22:10).

Jesus told his disciples they would see him coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28). Jesus told his disciples, the events of the olivet discourse would happen in their generation (Matthew 24:34)

The disciples believed and taught they were living in the last days (acts 2:16-17), at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:11), and that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18).

The source for the 20% comments is my own personal research. I have personally examined many such claims, including the one about the account of Josephus agreeing with the Revelstion, and that is my conclusion.

Soon,in human terms, or soon, in the terms Him to whom a thousand years is but a watch in the night. You have not answered this question, because considering it would destroy your argument.

 

[David Kent]

How can you call Preterism literalism? No one who thinks the events described in Rev that happened soon after the revelation thinks the beasts and creatures described literally appeared on earth exactly as described. The book itself says the pictures are metaphors. Thinking “soon” and “this generation “ means within 50 years doesn’t make one a literalist anymore that believing Jesus actually resurrected makes one a literalist.

It does if you believe that the temple is a literal temple and the Jews are literal Jews.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It does if you believe that the temple is a literal temple and the Jews are literal Jews.

Well does someone really think the Jews in the NT are not literal descentants of Israel? Or there is no literal temple? What was Jesus talking about when he said they’d be not one stone upon another? I mean it literally happened to the literal building. I guess Jesus was a literalist. We’re in good company.

 

[claninja]

I most certainly did not claim that any of these (including Irenaeus) was an "original" source. What I said, (go back and check) was that the original sources each of these used could not have been Irenaeus, for they gave details he did not give. So then HAD to have been depending on a different source.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Irenaeus, Victorinus, Jerome, and 'the acts of john' did not co exist with John, so I know they are not the 'original' sources. It appeared you were presenting a case for 4 'known' independent ancient sources to claim revelation was written during the reign of Domitian. So it appears that your case involves 3 sources (Jerome, victorinus, acts of john), at least 100 years after irenaeus, that related details about the banishment of John from other sources, of which we have no idea. But you also admit, that they could have some inspiration from Irenaeus.

So, contrary to the claims of Preterists, there were at least four independent ancient sources that indicated that the Revelation was written during the reign of Domatian. These four accounts have been presented together to demonstrate that every one of them contained at least some information that was not included in any of the others. But in addition to these four independent statements, there were also numerous other such statements made by these and other early Christian writers.

Irenaeus would be the closest source to original, as he learned from Polycarp as a child, and didn't record anything, but wrote a book almost 40-50 years later.

Victorinus, wrote almost 100 years after ireanaeus, mentions mines of patmos, but no other secular historian, church historian, or archeological evidence can confirm mines on patmos. His source would not have been original.

Jerome, wrote almost 200 years later, and according to you had an independent source because his details are different. This source would not have been original.

Acts of John, chapters 1-17, which contain the details of john's banishment, are considered lost and possibly not even a part of the original acts of john.

Look, you have done a good job combining all of the sources for post 70ad dating. But they are not 100% proof, they all have issues.

But we absolutely know that each of these was depending on a source other than Irenaeus, and we absolutely know that each of these four witnesses was depending on a source different from any of the other three. For each of them gave details then none of the others gave.

As a child, did you ever play the game "Chinese telephone"?

The source for the 20% comments is my own personal research. I have personally examined many such claims, including the one about the account of Josephus agreeing with the Revelstion, and that is my conclusion.

This type of article, I believe, would be an interesting read. But it would differ tremendously between the different eschatological beliefs due to bias.

Soon,in human terms, or soon, in the terms Him to whom a thousand years is but a watch in the night. You have not answered this question, because considering it would destroy your argument.

And don't forget a day is like a 1000 years and 1000 years like a day. God is outside of time. This doesn't mean 'soon' = thousands of years.

2 Peter 3:8 Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, AND a thousand years are like a day.

Is there another time in the bible where soon means thousands of years, so we can get a biblical definition of soon?

Again, Daniel was told to seal up a vision that wouldn't occur for around 100 more years.
John was told not to seal up the vision, for it was near.

 

[David Kent]

Well does someone really think the Jews in the NT are not literal descentants of Israel? Or there is no literal temple? What was Jesus talking about when he said they’d be not one stone upon another? I mean it literally happened to the literal building. I guess Jesus was a literalist. We’re in good company.

Of course the temple was destroyed. Jesus said he would raise it up in three days. He was speaking of the temple of his body. He did. Paul said to the church "You are the temple of the living God." He repeats it a number of times in different ways.

As I said "You are too literal" The whole book of revelation is "signified". Rev. 1:1.

 

[David Kent]

Well does someone really think the Jews in the NT are not literal descentants of Israel? Or there is no literal temple? What was Jesus talking about when he said they’d be not one stone upon another? I mean it literally happened to the literal building. I guess Jesus was a literalist. We’re in good company.

Jesus said that not one stone would remain on another. It didn't and it doesn't. But the temple is where God lives, and He lives today is the church.
Do you not realise that? "Your body (the Church) is the temple of the Holy Spirit,"

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Jesus said that not one stone would remain on another. It didn't and it doesn't. But the temple is where God lives, and He lives today is the church.
Do you not realise that? "Your body (the Church) is the temple of the Holy Spirit,"

You do realize that he was talking about the literal Jewish temple right? I mean it was standing there. You can read the story and clearly he was talking about the literal building. Do you know that God dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple? Did you know that? Jesus was a literalist, wasn't he? (If you can assume I know nothing at all, then I will assume that your knowledge of these things is rather limited....or you can talk to me with the same respect you would like to receive. That is a scriptural priniciple. Did you know that as well.?)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of course the temple was destroyed. Jesus said he would raise it up in three days. He was speaking of the temple of his body. He did. Paul said to the church "You are the temple of the living God." He repeats it a number of times in different ways.

As I said "You are too literal" The whole book of revelation is "signified". Rev. 1:1.

OK, I take my assumption all back. You really do not know much about what he was talking about. You are mixing up passages talking about different things. You know, when he cleaned out the temple of money changers, he was not cleaning out his body.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What is the source for this 20% claim. I would be really interested in reading it.

Was the city and sanctuary not destroyed in 70ad, just as Jesus predicted?

It is very supportable.

Daniel was told to seal his vision about Persia and Greece because it would not happens for many days (Daniel 8:26). But John was told not to seal it, for it would happen soon (revelation 22:10).

Jesus told his disciples they would see him coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28). Jesus told his disciples, the events of the olivet discourse would happen in their generation (Matthew 24:34)

The disciples believed and taught they were living in the last days (acts 2:16-17), at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:11), and that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18).

I suspect that the other side probably thinks only 20% of the prophesies about Jesus are supportable. Many Jews thought 0%, many of them. They were there in black and white and flesh and blood and they still did not see the connection. This unwillingness to see prophesy fulfilled is not new. Helps one get perspective when one realizes that many who actually saw and heard and touched Jesus refused to believe the prophesies were fulfilled but prefered it all to be still in the future.

 

[mark kennedy]

Persecution or wrath?

This is possibly describing the destruction of Jerusalem and way before Revelations is even written.

The word for persecution and tribulation (thilipsis) are the same word in Revelations. The seals indicate persecution, the opening of the fifth seal reveals the martyrs beneath the throne. When Israel repents the dragon has been cast down to earth. The personages of the woman and the dragon describes her fleeing into the wilderness, probably the Judean mountains or even the Sinai. Wrath doesn't come full force in till toward the end, and the battle of Armaggedon starts with the Antichrist fighting the kings of the east. Judgment doesn't always come in the form of God raining down fire and brimstone. Initially God reveals the man of sin, persecution follows and the sixth seal is most likely human weapons.

God doesn't bring direct intervention until the sounding of the trumpets. When they are complete the witness of the prophets is ended and the kingdoms of the earth become the kingdom of God. Even at that the world is under the control of the beast, God gives it nearly 7 years before pouring out the vials of wrath. He gave Canaan and Eqypt over four hundred years, wrath is the culmination of the exhaustion of the patience of God. Before God judges, he will reveal the reasons for it in no uncertain terms. It's appropriate to associate persecution with wrath, it's not only the same word, persecution of the church/Israel is likely the primary reason.

 

[David Kent]

You do realize that he was talking about the literal Jewish temple right? I mean it was standing there. You can read the story and clearly he was talking about the literal building. Do you know that God dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple? Did you know that? Jesus was a literalist, wasn't he? (If you can assume I know nothing at all, then I will assume that your knowledge of these things is rather limited....or you can talk to me with the same respect you would like to receive. That is a scriptural priniciple. Did you know that as well.?)

Of course Jesus was speaking about a literal temple in Olivet. I would agree with you on most of that prophecy. I agree very little with futurists on it.

Jesus a literalist? He was not a literalist when he said "Destroy this temple and I will build it up in three days". He was not being literal in the parables, which actually means "in figure" He spoke in parables to hide their meaning from unbelievers.

• Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

In Revelation Jesus was not speaking literally, he had to explain several things which when we compare them with interpreted visions in Daniel, help us to interpret others.

• Revelation 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
• Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Is the above literal or symbolic?

 

[David Kent]

Of course Jesus was speaking about a literal temple in Olivet. I would agree with you on most of that prophecy. I agree very little with futurists on it.

Jesus a literalist? He was lot a literalist when he said "Destroy this temple and I will build it up in three days". He was not being literal in the parables, which actually means "in figure" He spoke in parables to hide their meaning from unbelievers.

• Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

In Revelation Jesus was not speaking literally, he had to explain several things which when we compare them with interpreted visions in Daniel, help us to interpret others.

• Revelation 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
• Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Is the above literal or symbolic?