Revelation was written during Nero's reign before 70AD

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
There are lots of amateur historians out there, getting the wrong end of everything they read. When you calm down and stop assuming that I haven't read your posts, you might want to read mine--particularly the words 'general persecution'.

And there are lots of "historians" who have an ax to grind. I notice that you only seem to read "historians" who are Preterists.
Both the account of Victornius and "the Acts of the Holy Aostle and Evangelist John" clearly say the persecution of Domitian was a general persecution. But then of course, they are not Preterist "scholars." They are only direct ancient sources.
 
Upvote 0
B

Bible2

Guest
Time Watcher said in post 88:

Lord's prophetic word, comparisons to recorded history, and today's world do the job on refuting your preterism

That's right.

Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are future because they're about "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1b). And just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 has never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find its fulfillment, so the highly-detailed events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 have never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find their fulfillment.

Time Watcher said in post 88:

What is it that fascinates you with a religion like preterism? ... what does it do for you and why do you attempt to sell it to others?

Preterism (whether full or partial), as well as historicism (in its various modern forms), and pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, could all be animated by the same spirit of fear: that the church alive today throughout the world would otherwise have to physically suffer through the future, almost-entirely literal, worldwide tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. For these 5 views of preterism, historicism, pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, in their different ways, each gives a mistaken assurance to the church alive today that it won't have to physically suffer through that tribulation.

Preterism says that the tribulation happened in 70 AD. Historicism says that it happened over a long period in history (e.g. during the rise and height of the RCC's power in Europe during the Middle Ages and after, or during the rise and spread of Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere during the Middle Ages and after). Pre-tribulation rapturism says that Jesus will return and rapture the church into the 3rd heaven before the tribulation begins. Symbolicism says that the tribulation is only symbolic of theological themes which those in the church have always had to struggle with (e.g. Matthew 6:24), or is symbolic of only-local physical persecutions which some in the church have always had to face, and are still facing today in some places. And spiritualism says that the tribulation is only spiritual events, which go on only within the hearts of individuals.

But when the almost-entirely literal, worldwide tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 begins in our future, the shaky doctrinal wall which (in their different ways) these 5 views have each tried to build up between the church and the tribulation, will be completely shattered (Ezekiel 13:10-12) as the church worldwide begins to physically suffer through the tribulation (Matthew 24:9-31, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6). These 5 views may have left some in the church unprepared mentally to undergo this physical suffering, to where these 5 views could even contribute to some in the church ultimately losing their salvation because of committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12) during the tribulation, when they become "offended" that God is making them and their little ones physically suffer through it (Matthew 24:9-12, Matthew 13:21, Isaiah 8:21-22, Luke 8:13).

Even though the church today throughout the world will have to physically suffer through the tribulation, the church need not fear this (cf. 1 Peter 4:12-13, Revelation 2:10). For even though many in the church will suffer and die during that time (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13), this will be to their gain, as it will bring their souls into heaven to be with Jesus (Philippians 1:21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:8; see also 2 Corinthians 4:17-18; 2 Timothy 2:12), and it won't rob them of the blessed hope (Titus 2:13) of obtaining eternal life (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7) in an immortal, physical resurrection body (Romans 8:23-25, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39) at Jesus' 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), which will occur immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2013
102
4
✟9,060.00
Faith
Christian
Of course, you will argue this, because your system of belief requires that the Revelation was written much earlier.
My system of belief requires no such thing--stop stating untruths.

You seem to be confusing the document I quoted, which is indeed believed to date from the second century, with the gnostic "Acts of John," which is believed to date from about the same period, but which is also believed to have been amended much later. James' translation not only does not contain this account. It is a translation of an entirely different document.
You apparently are not aware that the gnostic text is known from and included in the later fifth/sixth century text which you quote.
So, you are telling me that Victornius did not believe what he explicitly said?
If you cannot read my simple words, no wonder you are so confused on more complex matters.

The Muratorian Canon indeed seems to back up your contention, but scholars are not agreed as to when it was written. Some date it at about 170, which would make it contemporary with Irenaeus, while others date it in the fourth century. But all agree that the only fragment that has survived is from the seventh or eighth century, and is in very bad Latin. So its testimony is questionable at best.
A scholar recently came along pretending it's not late second century as virtually every other scholar has agreed. But the text itself refers to Pius as being 'recent', and no Christian would have been so muddled on the canon any later than the third century. But it contradicts your position so you have to give credence to the late date.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Preterism (whether full or partial), as well as historicism (in its various modern forms), and pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, could all be animated by the same spirit of fear: that the church alive today throughout the world would otherwise have to physically suffer through the future, almost-entirely literal, worldwide tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. For these 5 views of preterism, historicism, pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, in their different ways, each gives a mistaken assurance to the church alive today that it won't have to physically suffer through that tribulation.

That is pure speculation and utter nonsense. Each of these systems is built on an attempt to understand the scriptures, not on a fear of having to pass through the end times.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My system of belief requires no such thing--stop stating untruths.

If you are not a Preterist, you are the only non-preterist I have ever bumped into that argued for the so-called "early" date for the Revelation.

You apparently are not aware that the gnostic text is known from and included in the later fifth/sixth century text which you quote.
If you cannot read my simple words, no wonder you are so confused on more complex matters.

I know that the document I quoted, which came from volume 8 of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," did not share even a single paragraph with the document with a shorter title which was translated by James. I can imagine that some later copyist may have combined these two documents, but they do not even have the "flavor" of a common author. One is silly, and contains many heresies, the other is serious and contains none.

A scholar recently came along pretending it's not late second century as virtually every other scholar has agreed. But the text itself refers to Pius as being 'recent', and no Christian would have been so muddled on the canon any later than the third century. But it contradicts your position so you have to give credence to the late date.

How recently do you contend this was suggested? and if only a single scholar thinks this, why do so many references mention it?
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2013
102
4
✟9,060.00
Faith
Christian
If you are not a Preterist, you are the only non-preterist I have ever bumped into that argued for the so-called "early" date for the Revelation.
Since you assume that anyone who holds the early date is a preterist, it is not too surprising that all those you have 'bumped into' have been 'preterist'. Francis Nigel Lee has written an important work on it and he is not preterist. I'm not aware that Edmundson was a preterist. Nor Philip Schaff. But in your world, all early date advocates are preterist.

I know that the document I quoted, which came from volume 8 of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," did not share even a single paragraph with the document with a shorter title which was translated by James. I can imagine that some later copyist may have combined these two documents, but they do not even have the "flavor" of a common author. One is silly, and contains many heresies, the other is serious and contains none.
The ANF does not give the full text, so of course it doesn't share a single paragraph--it barely quoted the 100 or so chapters of the full work.



How recently do you contend this was suggested? and if only a single scholar thinks this, why do so many references mention it?
He managed to get some adherents--liberals who like the idea that the canon was up in the air until the fourth century. But the Muratorian canon refers to Hermas writing under Pius "very recently". Of course if you would rather dismiss this in order to prop up the late date, it's no loss to me.

Here is what Charles Hill says about it:

Hahneman’s deliberate aim is to advance the work on canon begun by Albert C. Sundberg, who is said to have shown that the Christian church received from Judaism not a closed OT canon but a “looser collection of sacred writings” (p. 1). According to Sundberg, the process of fixing even an OT canon in the church did not begin until the third century and was not
completed until the fourth.

But hey, if you aren't interested in the truth and only want a weapon to hit the preterists with, go ahead and hold the fourth century origin of the MC.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Since you assume that anyone who holds the early date is a preterist, it is not too surprising that all those you have 'bumped into' have been 'preterist'. Francis Nigel Lee has written an important work on it and he is not preterist. I'm not aware that Edmundson was a preterist. Nor Philip Schaff. But in your world, all early date advocates are preterist.


The ANF does not give the full text, so of course it doesn't share a single paragraph--it barely quoted the 100 or so chapters of the full work.




He managed to get some adherents--liberals who like the idea that the canon was up in the air until the fourth century. But the Muratorian canon refers to Hermas writing under Pius "very recently". Of course if you would rather dismiss this in order to prop up the late date, it's no loss to me.

Here is what Charles Hill says about it:

Hahneman’s deliberate aim is to advance the work on canon begun by Albert C. Sundberg, who is said to have shown that the Christian church received from Judaism not a closed OT canon but a “looser collection of sacred writings” (p. 1). According to Sundberg, the process of fixing even an OT canon in the church did not begin until the third century and was not
completed until the fourth.

But hey, if you aren't interested in the truth and only want a weapon to hit the preterists with, go ahead and hold the fourth century origin of the MC.

Your allegations might be a little more convincing if they were backed up with documentation.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Well, I have found some historical sources about ANTIPAS - who is mentioned in the book of Revelation as a martyr.

Says he was martyred in 92 AD in Pergamos under Domitian.

This kind of TIPS THE SCALES FOR ME - along with Irenaeus' statements and the majority view of scholars - I have to say:

"No -- sorry"

to the Neronic date of Revelation theory
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Antipas was the overseer of Pergamum during the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian in 83 AD.
http://stevehyde.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/pergamum-churches-of-revelation-3/
 
Antipas prayed for his flock and for the entire world until his soul parted from his weakened body and ascended among the angels into the Kingdom of Christ. He died suffering and was crowned with unfading glory in the year 92 A.D.
http://protoevangel.blogspot.com/2007/04/priestly-martyr-antipas-bishop-of.html
 
According to Christian tradition, John the Apostle ordained Antipas as bishop of Pergamon during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The traditional account goes on to say Antipas was martyred in ca. 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar used for casting out demons worshiped by the local population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum
 
His martyrdom cannot be refuted and the most accepted version of his death as recorded in 92 A.D. by Simeon Metaphrastes is that he was roasted alive in a copper bull-shaped altar.
http://thepauls.wordpress.com/tag/antipas-the-martyr/


we are ready for Dandy Don to sing

"turn out the lights - the party's over"
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2013
102
4
✟9,060.00
Faith
Christian
Well, I have found some historical sources about ANTIPAS - who is mentioned in the book of Revelation as a martyr.

Says he was martyred in 92 AD in Pergamos under Domitian.

This kind of TIPS THE SCALES FOR ME - along with Irenaeus' statements and the majority view of scholars - I have to say:

"No -- sorry"

to the Neronic date of Revelation theory

There is no ancient source that tells us anything whatsoever about Antipas. We have no idea who he was or when he died. Some historians have placed his death in the 90s based upon the late dating of Revelation, but the truth is we have no idea when he died.

In any case, there is no evidence of a general persecution of Christians under Domitian.

And Irenaeus has been interpreted by Greek scholars as saying that John--not Revelation--was seen late in Domitian's reign--and the ancient Latin translator of Irenaeus interprets him in this way.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
In any case, there is no evidence of a general persecution of Christians under Domitian.

That is manifestly untrue, as can be seen by the very large number of times Domitian's cruelty and persecutions against the church were mentioned by early Christian writers.

“When Trajan, not long since, succeeded to the empire of the Romans, Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character, governed the Church of the Antiochians with great care, having with difficulty escaped the former storms of the many persecutions under Domitian, inasmuch as, like a good pilot, by the helm of prayer and fasting, by the earnestness of his teaching, and by his [constant ] spiritual labour, he resisted the flood that rolled against him, fearing [only] lest he should lose any of those who were deficient in courage, or apt to suffer from their simplicity.”(“The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” author unknown, chapter 1. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 1.)

“And when Vespasian was dead, his son Domitian, having got possession of the kingdom, along with his other wrongful acts, set himself also to make a persecution against the righteous men. For, having learned that the city was filled with Jews, remembering the orders given by his father about them, he purposed casting them all out of the city of the Romans. And some of the Jews took courage, and gave Domitian a book, in which was written as follows:—
O Domitian, Cæsar and king of all the world, as many of us as are Jews entreat thee, as suppliants we beseech of thy power not to banish us from thy divine and benignant countenance; for we are obedient to thee, and the customs, and laws, and practices, and policy, doing wrong in nothing, but being of the same mind with the Romans. But there is a new and strange nation, neither agreeing with other nations nor consenting to the religious observances of the Jews, uncircumcised, inhuman, lawless, subverting whole houses, proclaiming a man as God, all assembling together under a strange name, that of Christian. These men reject God, paying no heed to the law given by Him, and proclaim to be the Son of God a man born of ourselves, Jesus by name, whose parents and brothers and all his family have been connected with the Hebrews; whom on account of his great blasphemy and his wicked fooleries we gave up to the cross. And they add another blasphemous lie to their first one: him that was nailed up and buried, they glorify as having risen from the dead; and, more than this, they falsely assert that he has been taken up by clouds into the heavens.
At all this the king, being affected with rage, ordered the senate to publish a decree that they should put to death all who confessed themselves to be Christians. Those, then, who were found in the time of his rage, and who reaped the fruit of patience, and were crowned in the triumphant contest against the works of the devil, received the repose of incorruption.” (“Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John,” author unknown, translated by Alexander Walker, Esq. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 8.)

“For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero’s condemnation. Domitian, too, a man of Nero’s type in cruelty, tried his hand at persecution; but as he had something of the human in him, he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.” (“The Apology,” of Tertullian,tran. by the Rev. S. Thelwall, chapter 5. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 3.)

“Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines.” (“Apology Addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” by Melito, the Philosopher, part II. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 8.)

“He who gave power to Marius gave it also to Caius Cæsar; He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero; He also who gave it to the most benignant emperors, the Vespasians, father and son, gave it also to the cruel Domitian; and, finally, to avoid the necessity of going over them all, He who gave it to the Christian Constantine gave it also to the apostate Julian, whose gifted mind was deceived by a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity, stimulated by the love of power.” (“The City of God,” by Augustin, tran. By Marcus Dodss, D.D., book 5, chapter 21. From “Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers,” First series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., vol.2.)

“Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.” (“Church History,” by Eusebius, book 3, chapter 17. From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 1.)

“To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.
“And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian
Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, paragraphs 4 and 5. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 1.)
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Antipas was the overseer of Pergamum during the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian in 83 AD.
http://stevehyde.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/pergamum-churches-of-revelation-3/
 
Antipas prayed for his flock and for the entire world until his soul parted from his weakened body and ascended among the angels into the Kingdom of Christ. He died suffering and was crowned with unfading glory in the year 92 A.D.
http://protoevangel.blogspot.com/2007/04/priestly-martyr-antipas-bishop-of.html
 
According to Christian tradition, John the Apostle ordained Antipas as bishop of Pergamon during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The traditional account goes on to say Antipas was martyred in ca. 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar used for casting out demons worshiped by the local population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum
 
His martyrdom cannot be refuted and the most accepted version of his death as recorded in 92 A.D. by Simeon Metaphrastes is that he was roasted alive in a copper bull-shaped altar.
http://thepauls.wordpress.com/tag/antipas-the-martyr/


we are ready for Dandy Don to sing

"turn out the lights - the party's over"
I find this very interesting, but must add a word of caution. For it appears that the only ancient source for this account is Simeon Metaphrastes, who is thought to have written in the mid tenth century. A source that late, although interesting, is hardly conclusive.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Warning acknowledged, BW.

Though it's a piece of tradition, and for me it tips the scales, as I was leaning slightly to early date til I realized Antipas is actually mentioned personally, and the only references I find to him put his death at 92 AD.

That's a pretty SPECIFIC piece of data for "just a tradition", and someone seems to indicate he was made Bishop in Pergamum at 83 AD.

If either or both dates/items are true - it sinks a Neronic date.

And I interpret Ireanaeus as that it was the VISION that was seen not long ago in Domitian's time, and do not buy that it was John himself - what sense does that make?

"Oh, there's John - he wrote Revelation in 66 AD - but now here he is walking around in Domitian's time!"

uh uh
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2013
102
4
✟9,060.00
Faith
Christian
Warning acknowledged, BW.

Though it's a piece of tradition, and for me it tips the scales, as I was leaning slightly to early date til I realized Antipas is actually mentioned personally, and the only references I find to him put his death at 92 AD.

That's a pretty SPECIFIC piece of data for "just a tradition", and someone seems to indicate he was made Bishop in Pergamum at 83 AD.

If either or both dates/items are true - it sinks a Neronic date.

And I interpret Ireanaeus as that it was the VISION that was seen not long ago in Domitian's time, and do not buy that it was John himself - what sense does that make?

"Oh, there's John - he wrote Revelation in 66 AD - but now here he is walking around in Domitian's time!"

uh uh
What amazes me is how you guys draw dogmatic conclusions without even seeking out both views--did you read Chase or Edmundson or a number of other scholars who demonstrate why it must read "John was seen"? No. That is why you all believe the late date--you are self-selected for it on the basis that you are people who prematurely draw conclusions.
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2013
102
4
✟9,060.00
Faith
Christian
That is manifestly untrue, as can be seen by the very large number of times Domitian's cruelty and persecutions against the church were mentioned by early Christian writers.

Tertullian mentions a short-lived persecution (which Hegesippus indicates took place shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem) which Domitian brought an end of himself, restoring those banished. Tertullian contradicts Eusebius, and your view, which states that John did not return until the reign of Nerva. Therefore the persecution referred to by Tertullian (which I believe was confined to Jerusalem) could not have been the one which saw John banished, as John was restored only after the death of the tyrant who banished him. Eusebius has combined contradictory sources to create his fiction of a general persecution under Domitian--and you didn't even notice this or any of the other contradictions. You need to interact much more closely with your sources before drawing your conclusions.

We do not know the date of the Martyrdom of Ignatius. Some date it early, though it would still have an uncertain textual transmission. Some scholars (such as Candida Moss) date it to the fifth century. Swarley in his edition gives some weighty reasons for supposing them to be late in date, including the fact that they contradict the genuine letters of Ignatius, and Eusebius' account, by having Ignatius sail from Seleucia to Smyrna, whereas he went by the overland route. The Acts themselves are never quoted before the sixth century.

We see a pattern here--you rely upon late, historically inaccurate, ambiguous, or questionable sources to support your late dating of Revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Tertullian mentions a short-lived persecution (which Hegesippus indicates took place shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem) which Domitian brought an end of himself, restoring those banished.

It most absolutely could not have been "shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem," for Domatian did not become emperor until about eleven years after Jerusalem was destroyed.

Tertullian contradicts Eusebius, and your view, which states that John did not return until the reign of Nerva. {/quote]

Tertullian did not contradict this. He said something that Preterists interpret to mean that this cold not be true. That is an entirely different matter.

Therefore the persecution referred to by Tertullian (which I believe was confined to Jerusalem) could not have been the one which saw John banished, as John was restored only after the death of the tyrant who banished him.
What you believe is iinsignificant. What can be demonstrated from ancient writings is significant. I have given you a long list of Christians who called Domitian a tyrant.

Eusebius has combined contradictory sources to create his fiction of a general persecution under Domitian--and you didn't even notice this or any of the other contradictions. You need to interact much more closely with your sources before drawing your conclusions.

We do not know the date of the Martyrdom of Ignatius. Some date it early, though it would still have an uncertain textual transmission. Some scholars (such as Candida Moss) date it to the fifth century. Swarley in his edition gives some weighty reasons for supposing them to be late in date, including the fact that they contradict the genuine letters of Ignatius, and Eusebius' account, by having Ignatius sail from Seleucia to Smyrna, whereas he went by the overland route. The Acts themselves are never quoted before the sixth century.

We see a pattern here--you rely upon late, historically inaccurate, ambiguous, or questionable sources to support your late dating of Revelation.
What we actually see it that you rely upon questionable interpretations of a few writers, as opposed to explicit statements of numerous writers.

You call the plain words of Eusebius "fiction," but you have not provided a single item of ancient evidence to back up this ridiculous accusation.

So you believe a man who lived in the fist century was martyred on the fifth century? Interesting!!!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
What amazes me is how you guys draw dogmatic conclusions without even seeking out both views--did you read Chase or Edmundson or a number of other scholars who demonstrate why it must read "John was seen"? No. That is why you all believe the late date--you are self-selected for it on the basis that you are people who prematurely draw conclusions.

Did you ever read the "scholars" who said the opposite?

Why rely on "scholars," who almost always deny the scriptures, when you can actually read the words of the writers for yourself?
 
Upvote 0