The Nicene Creed - line by line

[Restoresmysoul]

Saint Peter died in around 64-67 AD and the Revelation was written around 90-96 AD. Obviously saint Peter would never have read revelation on earth because he was no longer on earth when it was written.

Regardless, the leader (Pope in your opinion ) of the Church would not be without that book would He? So my point stands.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Well, considering the revelation, itself, speaks of it being written during Nero's reign, (the latter part of the 60's AD), I suppose that is possible.

Lets loom at it this way. If RC, or EO or any other Church was in fact the first Church, wouldn't they have known about Revelation?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Regardless, the leader (Pope in your opinion ) of the Church would not be without that book would He? So my point stands.

I have no idea what point you think is standing because if saint Peter was dead and gone by the time the Revelation was written then he didn't have it while he was still alive on earth.

 

[Willie T]

Lets loom at it this way. If RC, or EO or any other Church was in fact the first Church, wouldn't they have known about Revelation?

I thought I said, "Yes", that was possible...... Revelation WAS probably written early enough.

(From the text of a recent class)
The primary reason some Bible teachers claim that the Book of Revelation was written around AD 96 is because John noted in Revelation 1:9 that he was on the island of Patmos at the time he received the Revelation. There is some historical evidence that John was exiled to Patmos under the reign of Domitian between AD 81 and AD 96. Therefore, the book might have been written during that time—or so some claim. In reality, there are also historical documents that tell us that John was exiled to Patmos at a much earlier date. Here I will share ten evidences that Revelation was written before AD 68.

1. The Syriac
We have the witness of one of the most ancient versions of the New Testament, called The Syriac. The second-century Syriac Version, called the Peshitto, says the following on the title page of the Book of Revelation:
"Again the revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor Nero."

We know that Nero Caesar ruled over the Roman Empire from AD 54 to AD 68. Therefore, John had to have been on the island of Patmos during this earlier period. One of the oldest versions of the Bible tells us when Revelation was written! That alone is a very compelling argument.

2. Revelation 17:10
When we look at the internal evidence, we find that there is also a very clear indicator regarding the date of authorship, found in Revelation 17:10: "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while" (Rev. 17:10).

This passage, which is speaking of the line of rulers in Rome, tells us exactly how many rulers had already come, which one was currently in power, and that the next one would only last a short while. Take a look at how that perfectly fits with Nero and the Roman Empire of the first century.

The rule of the first seven Roman Emperors is as follows:
Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
Augustus (27 BC-AD 14)
Tiberius (AD 14-37)
Caligula (AD 37-41)
Claudius (AD 41-54)
"Five have fallen..."
Nero (AD 54-68)
"One is..."
Galba (June AD 68-January AD 69, a six month ruler-ship)
"the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while."

Of the first seven kings, five had come (Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius), one was now in power (Nero), and one had not yet come (Galba), but would only remain a little time (six months). The current Caesar at the time of John's writing was the sixth Caesar, Nero.

3. Those Who Pierced Him
Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen (Revelation 1:7 YLT).

We already examined the Hebrew idiom, "coming on clouds," so we know that this speaks not of the return of Christ for the final judgment day, but of God coming to bring judgment on a city or nation (see Chapter 2 for more on this).

The phrase "those who did pierce him" refers to the people of the first century. According to this passage, they were expected to be alive at the time of Revelation's fulfillment. How is that possible if Revelation was not going to come to pass until 2,000 or more years later? Consider also that "those who did pierce him" weren't even alive in AD 96 because they would have been killed in the slaughter of AD 70. This verse is a clear indicator of Revelation being written before AD 70.

4. Jewish Persecution of Christians
The Jewish persecution of Christianity in Revelation 6 and 11 indicates a pre-AD 70 authorship. The Jews were not in a position to persecute the early Church after they were slaughtered in AD 70. In fact, since the AD 70 slaughter, the Jews have never been in a position to be able to persecute Christians.

5. Judaizing Heretics in the Church
The activity of the Judaizing heretics in the Church (see Rev. 2:6,9,15; 3:9) would not have been as large of an issue after Paul's epistles had been circulated. Therefore, an early date of authorship allows for the heretics to be a larger problem.

6. Existence of Jerusalem and the Temple
The existence and integrity of Jerusalem and the Temple (see Rev. 11) suggest a date before the destruction of AD 70.

7. Time-related Passages
The internal time-related portions of Revelation indicate that the events it foretells will come to pass shortly (see Rev. 1:1,3; 22:10,20). If this was read with an unbiased perspective, one would conclude that Revelation was not written about events 2,000 years in the future.

8. John's Appearance in AD 96
Another reason to believe that the Book of Revelation was written at the earlier date is because Jerome noted in his writings that John was seen in AD 96 and that he was so old and infirm that "he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people." We must put this fact together with what Revelation 10:11 says: that John must "prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and kings." It is difficult to imagine that John would be able to speak to many nations and many kings at any date after AD 96 since he was already elderly and feeble.

9. Timetable Comparison with Daniel
In Daniel, the author was told to "seal up the vision, for it is a long way off" (Dan. 12:4)—which referred to a 483-year wait until Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy. By contrast, in Revelation, John was told to "not seal up the vision because it concerns things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev 22:10). If 483 years was considered a long way off, meaning that the vision should be sealed, it makes no sense that 2,000 plus years would be considered "shortly to come to pass" and not to be sealed up. Clearly, Revelation shouldn't be sealed because it was about to come to pass at the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

10. Only Seven Churches
The existence of only seven churches in Asia Minor (see Rev. 1) indicates a writing date before the greater expansion of Christianity into that region.

The Other Perspective
Those who believe in the later date of authorship for the Book of Revelation are mainly leaning on the fact that Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons (AD 120-202) claimed that John wrote while on Patmos under Domitian's reign. This alone could seem compelling, except that Irenaeus is notorious for being terrible at accurately recording dates and times in his writings. Irenaeus is the same Church father who claimed that Jesus' ministry lasted nearly twenty years, from the age of thirty until the age of fifty. There is no internal evidence for a later date of authorship; one must lean only upon external evidence to force this conclusion.

Because of the overwhelming body of evidence, I firmly believe that Revelation was written during Nero's reign and before his death in AD 68. I believe that Revelation was written regarding the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Yet, I also know that, at this time, I personally am not called to add my thoughts to the many great works written regarding the Book of Revelation from this point of view. For more information, I will suggest the writings of the experts in this regard:

The Great Tribulation by David Chilton

Days of Vengeance by David Chilton

Revelation by Gordon Fee

Revelation for Everyone by N.T. Wright

Conclusion
Considering the evidence used to support both the earlier date and the later date for the writing of the Book of Revelation brings us to a simple conclusion. The most logical and historically responsible conclusion, based on all the evidence, is that Revelation was, in fact, written prior to AD 68 and many of the events foretold in it may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Is there a contention on the table that the Church could not have existed, or not been the Church, if it did not have the complete Canon of Scripture?

Acts 2
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

This occurs immediately after Pentecost. The Apostles were not sitting in the Upper Room writing down the books of the Bible before the Holy Spirit came. They were not written until some time later. The Church began immediately after the coming of the Holy Spirit. The only Scriptures they possessed at that time were the Old Testament Scriptures.

Yes, the Gospels were written and circulated, and very important. Yes, the epistles were written and shared and circulated. All of these were read in Church and taught to the faithful.

And three centuries later, a council met and finally decided on nearly all of the books that would become the New Testament. There still were some discrepancies, and Revelation was not accepted until later.

Was there a Church for the first 300 years? Of course there was! As important as the Scriptures are - and they are of primary importance - the Church was not delayed or non-existent until they could be compiled. The Church began on the Day of Pentecost (or arguably before, but not after!).

So I would say that lacking the Book of Revelation does not mean the Church does not exist. And the presence of the Church does not mean that there was a Bible exactly like the one we have today. One does not depend on the other. It was the council (made up of men of the Church) who decided what books would be in the Bible in the first place.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I have no idea what point you think is standing because if saint Peter was dead and gone by the time the Revelation was written then he didn't have it while he was still alive on earth.

I assume that if Peter had a successor after he died (the Pope in your opinion) that this man would have had the book of Revelation. Correct?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I assume that if Peter had a successor after he died (the Pope in your opinion) that this man would have had the book of Revelation. Correct?

Eventually , yes. Clement of Rome may have had it since he was pope in the 90s AD.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I thought I said, "Yes", that was possible......

Yes, i understand. I just wanted to update my assertion to conform to the things that you and others have shared.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Regardless, the leader (Pope in your opinion ) of the Church would not be without that book would He? So my point stands.

So ... what if Luther had gotten his way? Did you know he wanted to remove Revelation from the Bible?

Jude, Hebrews, and James as well. Especially James. He really didn't like James.

In that case ... there is a chance that everyone who has a 66-book Bible today would instead think that a 62-book Bible was correct.

Would that make none of them part of the Church, since they lack Revelation?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Is there a contention on the table that the Church could not have existed, or not been the Church, if it did not have the complete Canon of Scripture?

No, im only saying that the first Church and its successors must have had the record of the Gospel, the commands of the Apostles in the 1st century, and the book of revelation.

I feel as if you guys are toying with me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In just the last couple of days, I've read at least three versions of the Nicene Creed. Are you guys all talking about "one", and if so, is it the "We believe..." or the "I believe..." one? And, then which one of each of THOSE?

And HI WILLIE!!!

I quoted the version of the Nicene Creed I wish to use in the OP, I believe.

From what I understand, it was originally written as "I believe". Many of the newer publishers have changed it to "We believe" for the sake of making it sort of a community thing - for the sake of solidarity. That is fine and admirable. It is a change, but essentially, since it is supposed to be a statement of the Church, each one of us "I" believes, but as a group "we" believe. I don't have a problem with it either way.

Of course, the West added the filioque, which is the only other change I am aware of. I did add it to the Creed I posted (which I copied from an Orthodox site) because the majority of posters here in CF are either Catholic or Protestant, and as such, they most likely include it in their version. I don't want this to be a "war of the Churches" thread, so i have included it, but don't wish to debate it.

If there are other versions or changes to the Nicene Creed, I am not aware of them. If you know of any, let me know, but I don't know why it would have been changed otherwise, and don't believe it should be.

Great to see you, dear brother!


Oops, edit to add: I am also aware that some change "One, holy, apostolic, and catholic Church" to read "One, holy, apostolic, and universal Church". Since that is a reaction against the word "catholic" because of the Catholic Church, although the Creed does not specifically mean that Church, I did not make that change. I don't support it since it is to make it more palatable to some, made for an uninformed reason imo, and unnecessary.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The site rules say we believe
http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Eventually , yes. Clement of Rome may have had it since he was pope in the 90s AD.

It was previously stated that the the Byzantine Rite was an umbrella term that covered both RC and EC, and that the Byzantine Rite did not acquire the book of revelation until well after the first century. But if in fact they were the first church they would have already had it in the very beginning, in the 1st century.

Please, correct any errors in my understanding.

 

[Albion]

So ... what if Luther had gotten his way? Did you know he wanted to remove Revelation from the Bible?

Well, it was the most controversial of the books that finally were included in the canon back in the 4th century.

Jude, Hebrews, and James as well. Especially James. He really didn't like James.

Because it's the most simplistic of all the epistles. It has really only one point to make and that's almost too obvious.

Although I'm not a Lutheran, I'm kinda sensitive to the idea that the greatest Bible scholar of his time (and one who argued that the EOs had right a lot of what he though the RCs had wrong) doubted these books merely because he wanted to "stack the deck," as it were, in support of his theology.

 

[Willie T]

The site rules say we believe
http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0

That could make sense for this forum, as each of us is affirming as an individual..... thereby making up the collective "We".

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, im only saying that the first Church and its successors must have had the record of the Gospel, the commands of the Apostles in the 1st century, and the book of revelation.

I feel as if you guys are toying with me.

No, I don't think anyone is toying with you. Because the things you bring up are important, I think everyone is trying to give you information.

However, all of this is off-topic. I don't mind the info, but endlessly debating it would seem unproductive.

(Incidentally, you speak as if you refer to a single Church in a single location? The Church spread out to many regions - that was the intent. To spread the Gospel. But you should look up what dates the various books were thought to have been written, and you will see that "the Church" could not immediately possess them all since they did not exist.)

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That would make sense for this forum, as each of us is affirming as an individual..... thereby making up the collective "We".

Right

 

[Restoresmysoul]

So ... what if Luther had gotten his way? Did you know he wanted to remove Revelation from the Bible?

Jude, Hebrews, and James as well. Especially James. He really didn't like James.

In that case ... there is a chance that everyone who has a 66-book Bible today would instead think that a 62-book Bible was correct.

Would that make none of them part of the Church, since they lack Revelation?

I'm not promoting Luther, please dont take me wrong. Im only focused on the book of revelation, and when the RCC acquired it. I'm trying to understand if they had it in the first century

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, it was the most controversial of the books that finally were included in the canon back in the 4th century.


Because it's the most simplistic of all the epistles. It has really only one point to make and that's almost too obvious.

Although I'm not a Lutheran, I'm kinda sensitive to the idea that the greatest Bible scholar of his time (and one who argued that the EOs had right a lot of what he though the RCs had wrong) doubted these books merely because he wanted to "stack the deck," as it were, in support of his theology.

I understand, which is why I didn't mention anything calling his motives into question. It's actually something I try not to promote, as I greatly respect the Lutherans and their theology.

My point was that Restoremysoul seems to be saying that the existence of the Church relied upon possession of the complete Canon. Given the fluidity of the Canon, that seems most unreasonable.

I thought of mentioning possible underground Churches in places that are closed to the Gospel, and the situations where they possess sometimes a very limited portion of the Bible. I would not say these believers were not part of the Church, even if they live out their lives never knowing of the existence of the Book of Revelation.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

No, I don't think anyone is toying with you. Because the things you bring up are important, I think everyone is trying to give you information.

However, all of this is off-topic. I don't mind the info, but endlessly debating it would seem unproductive.

(Incidentally, you speak as if you refer to a single Church in a single location? The Church spread out to many regions - that was the intent. To spread the Gospel. But you should look up what dates the various books were thought to have been written, and you will see that "the Church" could not immediately possess them all since they did not exist.)

Yes, i suggested that we start a new thread but we still managed to get off topic. My apologies.