Date of the Apocalypse

[Lost4words]

A common ploy taken from your second link.
"It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou – i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date."

They say the similarity of names Domitius and Domitian is often used, but it is nonsense as Domitiu was one of Nero's birth names and not one of his regal names.
the most compelling evidence for a late date is that practically all the Early Church Writers (aka ECF) taught that the antichrist was still to come, he would follow the ten kings who would suceed the Roman empire and would continue till the end of all things. Few preterist or futurist views in them.
The following extracts are taken from an appendix in the 4th edition of Mr Elliott's book.

Pseudo Sibil (hinted) that antichrist would be nero restored to life. Wrote of Rome as Babylon. as well as Rome.

Justin Martyr, Antichrist was still future in his day but based mainly on Daniel.

Irenaeus, Directed his readers to look out for the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms which would be immediately followed by Antichrist. Considered Antichrist would fix the abomination in Jerusalem and sit in a rebuilt temple as god.

Tertullian, Chronologically agreed with Irenaeus but not with his views about antichrist. Tertullian considered pseudo christian heretics like the Marcionites sitting in the church as fulfilling Paul's prophecy of Antichrist sitting in the temple.

Hipolytus, and immediate sucessor to Tertullian. Antichrist would revive the old empire as an image or ghost of the fomer, giving life to the image of he beast, just as Augustus once did by giving new laws and constitution.

Origen. Considered the 144,000, in Rev 7 and 14 as true Christians, similar to Tertullian who considered them as 144,000 christian martyrs.

Victorianus, the first to leave us a commentary on Revelation. Rather long but he mainly equates it to the church age. The abomination being heresy in the church.

None of them equated Revelation with the period before AD 70

You can look up their original writings on the Romanist New Advent ste. Start here CHURCH FATHERS: Home

My evidence, provided, is, in my view, an excellent source of information proving an earlier date for Revelation.

 

[BobRyan]

Date of the Apocalypse
Part 3
Thus (to conclude) the varied historical evidence that has been inquired into, all concurs to confirm the date originally and expressly assigned by Irenaus to the Apocalypse, as seen and written at the close of the reign of Domitian: that is, near the end of the year 95, or beginning of 96.2 Accordingly, the most approved modern ecclesiastical historians and biblical critics,—writers who have had no bias on the point in question, one way or the other, from any particular cherished theory of Apocalyptic interpretation,—for example alike Dupin, Basnage, Turretin, Spanheim,3 Mosheim, Milner, LeClerc, Mill, Whitby,4 Lampe, Neander, Lardner, 5 Tomline, Burton,6 &c,&c,—have alike adopted it.7 And we may, I am persuaded, depend on its correctness

Excellent! Thanks for sharing that!

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

If you go to Patmos, as I have, you will see a plaque near the beach where it says John baptized people in 95 AD. Also in the cave where John wrote Revelation, it states that was during Dominations time as Emperor.
It is only people who want to make out that Revelation is fulfilled, for whatever reason; who attempt to make a case for a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation.
Which is plainly wrong, as what is described in Revelation, bears no relation to what happened in 70 - 135 AD

I've never heard of someone citing a plaque as proof before.

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[keras]

I've never heard of someone citing a plaque as proof before.

That plaque is the historical record of John having been on Patmos in 95 AD. Solid evidence!

I view the attempts to place Revelation before 70 AD, as a way to avoid the vividly prophesied worldwide events; by pushing it all into past history. But that idea fails miserably, because what Revelation says will happen, bears no relation to what did take place in the first century.

Luke 21:25-28....Stand strong and hold your head high, for our Redemption is nigh!
But first must come verses 25-26; dramatic cosmic and earthly changes. All as the Prophets have told us must happen. There is no excuse for us not being prepared for it.

 

[timtams]

That plaque is the historical record of John having been on Patmos in 95 AD. Solid evidence!

I'm not going to waste my time with such ludicrous claims.