Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

I do believe it is possible (and likely, with historical support) that john served two stays on patmos. The information about when the vision was seen(and delivered as a letter) and possibly published (or mass distributed) could be part of the factors and confusion to this issue. Si much so that even second century persons did not decipher and state unanimously.

The context of the quote by ireneous still leans towards when jihn was seen, not tne visiin as the first sentence in the following paragraph supports.

And the one other point you claim mostly focuses on the evidence of his being sentenced by domitian, not on the seeing of the vision.

I'll try to find the quote by vic. I may have the ECF wrong.

Wuth external info applying to and supporting both possibilities, the internal context indicates immediate fulfillment anf of the end of the mosaic national covt. (Rev 15:3)

Notrash,
how is Rev 15:3 stating the end of the Mosaic covenant? By using the name of it about the new?

Biblewriter said:

All historians of the ancient world that are considered even moderately reliable agree that th Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian, which did not begin until long after the destruction of Jerusalem. And these include statements that reveal an absolute minimum of four ancient sources if information. This makes this one of the most completely documented facts of ancient history that we know about.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean all historians you agree with Biblewriter? Please don't be disingenuous. You and I both know many are riding on the ambiguous statement of Iranaeus.

70 AD was a time of WORLD CHAOS of that era...don't act as if nothing is going on in that time! Rome had regained their prominence as the world ruler.

Rome returned to Jerusalem after they had withdrwn to put down several uprisings aginst the empire due to the instability after Nero had persecuted the Christians.

The deeper point here is that John himself tells us in Revelation 1:9, EXACTLY where he was:
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partake6 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.

He doesn't say Nero put him there...but isn't it interesting how John worded that? Then...Peter and Paul (based on most historical accounts), are put to death by Nero?

Is a bell ringing?

Biblewriter said:

If you bothered to actually read the OP, you would know that there was not even one unambiguous statement by even one writer that modern historians consider reliable, that dated the Revelation at any time other than during the reign of Domatian. And you would also know that although some of them were riding on the statement of Irenaeus, at least three early writers gave details that conclusively proved that they were relying on sources independent of Irenaeus or of any of the others.

Click to expand...

Ambiguity is not a raw thing Biblewriter...it's perceived, and it takes time to see it.

Biblewriter said:

So we have an absolute minimum of four ancient sources relied upon by no less than seven ancient writers who all agreed that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian. Opposed to this, we have two or three who made ambiguous comments that could be interpreted to mean that it was given earlier, but not even one of them previous to the sixth century, and that came from a source that modern historians consider reliable, unambiguously stated that it was given earlier.

Click to expand...

You know I always present Gentry's work "Before Jerusalem Fell"...that is based on presenting everthing, not just what one want to present.

Biblewriter said:

These indebatable facts are why almost every modern historian who is not a Preterist has concluded that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian.

Click to expand...

Really??? Based on what? You haven't presented anything that's really convincing. Even patristics is based on one's theological position.

I'll stand with the fact that the word of God STANDS. John said he was "IN THE TRIBULATION"...so guess what?

He was in the tribulation...

ebedmelech said in post 367:

The deeper point here is that John himself tells us in Revelation 1:9, EXACTLY where he was:
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partake6 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.

Click to expand...

"The" tribulation in Revelation 1:9 (in the original Greek) is the general tribulation that the church has experienced from its beginning (Acts 14:22, John 16:33). There's also the never-fulfilled, unprecedented tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22) of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, which the church will experience in our future, just preceding Jesus' 2nd coming (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). Also, the various trials which individual Christians undergo, including currently, can be referred to as plural "tribulations" (Romans 5:3, Ephesians 3:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:4).

ebedmelech said in post 367:

He doesn't say Nero put him there...but isn't it interesting how John worded that? Then...Peter and Paul (based on most historical accounts), are put to death by Nero?

Is a bell ringing?

Click to expand...

Note that Nero didn't fulfill the detailed references to the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) in Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 16:2-16, Revelation 19:19-21, and Revelation 20:4. Also, Nero didn't fulfill other prophecies regarding the Antichrist (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9, Daniel 11:31,36; cf. Matthew 24:15). And John the apostle didn't see the vision of Revelation until decades after the time of Nero. For Irenaeus (born c. 140 AD) said: "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 [John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision [Revelation]. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies 5:30:3c). The end of Domitian's reign was 96 AD. Nero's reign was 54-68 AD. The detailed prophecies regarding the Antichrist, just as the rest of the tribulation prophecies of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, have never been fulfilled.

Any mistaken teaching which claims that the Antichrist has already come and gone could be employed in our future by the real Antichrist to fool some Christians into thinking that he isn't the Antichrist.

Also, regarding the claim (made by some) that Nero's name in Hebrew gematria added up to 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18), is there an ancient historical source which shows how "Nero Caesar" was usually transliterated into Hebrew at the time that Revelation was written, so we can confirm whether or not the usual Hebrew transliteration of "Nero Caesar" added up to 666 in Hebrew gematria, instead of an intentionally-altered Hebrew spelling? For example, why was an "n" added after "Nero", to make "Neron"; and why was the "ae" of "Caesar" skipped to make "Csar", when, for example, the "ae" in "Israel" gets at least an "aleph" in Hebrew? Could "Neron Csar" in fact be an intentionally-altered, never-actually-used spelling that adds up to 666, just as people today could intentionally mistransliterate into Hebrew the name of someone living today so that the mistransliterated name adds up to 666 in Hebrew gematria? Also, just by chance there could be more than one person in the world whose name adds up to 666. So even if it could be proven that the usual Hebrew spelling of "Nero Caesar" added up to 666, or that the usual spelling of the name of someone living today adds up to 666, this doesn't require that that person is the Antichrist.

Also, should we even assume that the Antichrist's name has to be transliterated into Hebrew for it to add up to 666? For Revelation was originally addressed to Greek-speaking Gentile churches in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) (what's now western Turkey), not to Hebrew-speaking Jewish churches in Judaea. And John the apostle used 3 letters from the Greek alphabet to express the number 666 in Revelation 13:18 (in the original Greek Textus Receptus), not any letters from the Hebrew alphabet. (But this doesn't require that the Antichrist's name has to be transliterated into Greek in order for it to add up to 666, for John used the Greek alphabet only because it was the most common one used by the believers he was addressing at the time that Revelation was written.) Also, even when "Nero Caesar" (instead of "Neron Csar") is transliterated into Hebrew, it doesn't have to result in the name adding up to 666:

N - Nun = 50 (cf. the "Ne" in "Nebo" in the Hebrew of Num. 32:3: Nun for the "N" and nothing for the "e")
E /
R - Reysh = 200
O - Vav = 6 (cf. the "o" in "Nebo" in the Hebrew of Num. 32:3 being the letter Vav)

C - Qowph = 100 (cf. "Kareah" in the Hebrew of Jer. 40:8, & "Caesar" being "Kaisar" in the Greek of Mt. 22:17)
A - Aleph = 1 (cf. the "ae" in "Israel" in the Hebrew of Gen. 32:28: Aleph for the "a" and nothing for the "e")
E /
S - Samek = 60 (cf. the "sar" in "Ellasar" in the Hebrew of Gen. 14:1: Samek for the "s" & nothing for the "a")
A /
R - Reysh = 200

Total = 617

Biblewriter said:

Gentry's work is extremely prejudiced, and does not present nearly all of the available documentation. In the multi-part OP, I have clearly and explicitly documented every statement I have made.

Click to expand...

No Biblewriter, Gentry's work is accomplish and thorough. You haven't documented a thing that even rivals the work of Gentry, and his work has yet to be refuted.

Biblewriter said:

And I proved. I did not allege, but proved, that an absolute minimum of seven early writers clearly dated it in the reign of Domatian, and that no less than our of these early writers included details that were not in the work of anyone who wrote before them, clearly proving an absolute minimum of four independent ancient sources.

Click to expand...

Surely you jest? You didn't prove anything. If it makes you feel better to say that, go right ahead.

Biblewriter said:

And I also pointed out the details of the writers that are cited as disagreeing that show that every one of these statements that came from a source that is considered reliable, was ambiguous.

And I gave the details that showed that the two early sources that were not ambiguous are also well known for containing many historical errors.

Click to expand...

I know you honestly think you did but you really didin't Biblewriter. At this point you're basically believing your own hype...while Gentry has had to do an update to his book, which was his doctrinal dissertation. It was in demand.

But BW, like I have asked before, why are you going to find "literal" details to sync the book to 95, but then when ch 1 says immediate, at hand, quickly, nothing happens and you are not literal?

Biblewriter said:

You are totally discrediting yourself here. For I gave exact quotations, with explicit citations of where the writers n question made the statements I quoted. And I pointed out exactly what was ambiguous about the alleged contrary statements from respected authorities, and why the few that made unambiguous contrary statements were, in every case, rejected as unreliable sources, not for these statements, but for many other obvious errors.

Click to expand...

I haven't discredited myself at all on this matter Biblewriter. What you presented is what you think discredits Gentry's work. However, that is not proof of anything. What you presented also has to be evaluated. This is a work that many others, superior to you would have refuted, but they could not.

Biblewriter said:

This indeed qualifies as proof, whether or not you are willing to admit it.

Gentry's book is deceptive in its representation of the historical facts. It is in demand because there are so many people who love the taste of his Jim Jones style Kool-aid.

Click to expand...

Like I said Biblewriter, if you think so. Gentry's work stands in my book because as I said many, superior to you cannot and have not refuted it.

It stands as a superb work. It leaves the decision to the reader...and everything he puts forth he supplies his sources for.

The real "Kool-aide" is the idea John wrote Revelation in 95 AD and doesn't even mention that Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed???

Keep drinking.

ebedmelech said in post 377:

The real "Kool-aide" is the idea John wrote Revelation in 95 AD and doesn't even mention that Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed???

Click to expand...

Since John saw his Revelation vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c), and Revelation is about future events (Revelation 1:1), not past events, there was no need to mention the past events of 70 AD.

Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 require that there will be a 3rd Jewish temple in the earthly Jerusalem during the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. This 3rd temple will coexist with the church like the 2nd temple did (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17), and like the temple building in heaven does (Revelation 11:19). The 3rd temple could be built on Jerusalem's Temple Mount by the ultra-Orthodox Jews, after they (or great earthquakes) clear the site by destroying the Muslim Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. Shortly after they build the temple, the Antichrist could attack and defeat them, and a false Messiah leading them (Daniel 11:22).

Then the Antichrist could "cut" a peace treaty with them and their false "Messiah" (Daniel 9:26a, Daniel 11:23a), permitting them to keep the temple, and to continue to perform the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices in front of it, for at least 7 more years (Daniel 9:27a), so long as they give up the outer court of the temple (Revelation 11:2a) to the Muslims, so that the Muslims can rebuild the Al Aqsa Mosque on the southern end of the Temple Mount and resume worship there. The ultra-Orthodox Jews could grudgingly agree to this, if the only other option is for them to lose the temple entirely. They could then build a high wall between the temple and the mosque, in order to keep the temple from being "defiled".

But then, only some 3.5 years after making the peace treaty, the Antichrist will break the treaty, attack the temple, stop the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices, place the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the temple (Daniel 9:27b, Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15), and then sit himself in the temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). Thus could begin the Antichrist's literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:9).

At the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, the Antichrist (Daniel 11:45) and the world's armies will pillage Jerusalem right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21). And at the 2nd coming, there will be tremendous earth changes in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4-5). These events could result in all of Jerusalem's structures, including the 3rd temple and the Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall), being broken down so that not one stone will be left on another (Luke 19:44, Matthew 24:2). Then the returned Jesus (Zechariah 14:4, Acts 1:11-12) will rebuild Jerusalem and make it the capital of the world (Zechariah 14:8-19, Micah 4:1-4). He will also build a 4th temple there (Zechariah 14:20-21, Zechariah 6:12-13). It will serve a similar function for the church during the future millennium (of Revelation 20:4-6) as the 2nd temple served for the church in the 1st century AD (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17), and as the temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19) serves for those in heaven (Revelation 7:15).

--

One reason that the 3rd Jewish temple of Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 hasn't been built yet is the Israeli government is protecting the Muslim Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque (the 3rd-holiest buildings in Islam, right after those in Mecca and Medina), knowing that if the ultra-Orthodox Jews were to remove these buildings in order to clear the Temple Mount for a 3rd Jewish temple, this could mean the end of the current state of Israel. For enraged Muslim armies and militias could attack Israel en masse in an all-out jihad and defeat it completely. While the ultra-Orthodox Jews are no doubt aware of this danger, they believe that the 3rd temple must nonetheless be built exactly where the prior temples stood: right over the Rock of Sacrifice (the Rock of the Dome of the Rock) on which Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac. And the ultra-Orthodox Jews could be brought to the point where they will even desire to see the end of the current, secular state of Israel, believing that only in its demise will God make it possible for them to establish a new, perfectly ultra-Orthodox, theocratic state of Israel.

Something that could bring the ultra-Orthodox Jews to this point would be them getting squeezed out of their settlements in Samaria and Judaea (also called the West Bank), and in East Jerusalem, as part of a peace deal handing these areas over to a Palestinian state. For the ultra-Orthodox Jews (rightly) see Samaria, Judaea, and Jerusalem as the historically most important and holy parts of the land promised by God to Israel since the time of Abraham (Exodus 32:13). So when they start to get squeezed out of these areas, in a rage they could suddenly mass in their tens of thousands, armed with machine guns (which they're allowed to have for self-defense against the Palestinians). And led by 3 huge bulldozers, they could march as a great army to the Old City of Jerusalem, and go up onto the Temple Mount and destroy the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. (Or they could simply clear away their rubble, if earthquakes have already destroyed them by that time.)

Besides getting squeezed out of their settlements, something else that could tip the scales toward the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel becoming violent would be the rising up of a miracle-working, ultra-Orthodox Jewish false "Messiah" (cf. Matthew 24:24), who could tell the ultra-Orthodox Jews something like:

"God says that now is the time for us to take back religious control of the Holy Temple Mount, and rid it of all the detestable shrines which the Muslims have placed upon it. We are to sanctify it in the name of our God, so that we might rebuild His Holy Temple there. Listen, my brethren, fear not the Muslims' reaction when we retake religious control of the Holy Temple Mount. For God Himself is with us. He will protect us perfectly. Have I not shown you His mighty Power working through Me? Fear not any men, but fear only our Mighty God, who now commands us to rebuild His Holy Temple at the place He determined from the time of our Father Abraham. Our God gave us back the Holy Temple Mount way back in 1967 C.E. But what have we done with it over all the time since then? Nothing! How can this be? How can we have allowed some merely-secular, so-called 'Israeli' government invented by sinful men to keep us, God's holy people, from even setting foot back on the Temple Mount? Let us rise up, my brethren! Let us all rise up, in the name of our God, and let us do mighty exploits to the Glory of His Holy Name!"

Something else that could help tip the scales toward the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel becoming violent is their finding out the location of the Ark of the Covenant, which could be buried under an ancient ruined fort in the desert east of Jerusalem. The Copper Scroll could contain the clues as to where the Ark is buried in the fort (e.g. "under the third step"). The Ark could have been located there already with ground-penetrating radar by some non-religious treasure hunters, but the Israeli government could be holding up a digging permit to retrieve the Ark, because the government is afraid that the ultra-Orthodox Jews could see a retrieval of the Ark as (in their words) "An unmistakable sign from God that now is the time for us to rebuild His Holy Temple". So the Israeli government has a motive to keep the location of the buried Ark top secret.

Where does ch 1 of the Rev "point out" to the reader that it is to be read from "God's point of view" like 2 Pet 3? Is the suffering of the 7 churches or anyone else mentioned in the Rev "from God's point of view" and going to happen later? Do you know anyone who speaks like this as a rule? Do you really think God would speak that way to the generation who suffered way more intensely than anything we see today?

2 Pet 3 can still be true about the judgement day, but that does not justify transfering a special mental exercise over to reading the Rev. I'm much more inclined to view the thing as an expression of what happened to that generation than a guide to our future. There are plenty of ordinary language passages about the future return and day of judgement.