When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Biblewriter]

I really don't know what you are trying to prove. The early church writers, with unusual agreement nearly all said Rome would be overthrown by ten kings.

Actually, none of them said that. They said that the Roman Empire would be divided among ten ten kings. But none of them said that these ten kings would conquer it.

 

[Biblewriter]

Some of the Early Christians who believed that the let and hindrance was the
Roman Empire and Emperor were:
Justin Martyr
Hyppolytus
Tertullian
Cyril of Jerusalem
Jerome

Please provide actual quotations, not blanket assertions.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I really don't know what you are trying to prove. The early church writers, with unusual agreement nearly all said Rome would be overthrown by ten kings. They got that from Daniel and revelation. They believed that Antichrist would come from among those ten kings. They also believed that the removal of the empire and emperor would enable that to happen. Where did they get that from? Paul told them, 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

Extremely weak and foolish interpretation as that is not what happened, if the early church writers were so foolish. The writers of the Bible thought those events would take place in a manner of years and that is exactly what happened. The Roman empire played very little role in the plan of God, certainly not pivotal.

Might as well say that the late church writers, those of the 20th century, thought the events in Revelation would happen in a one world government and start any day now. If majority view binds the truth to them, then that is as good as the early church who was equally wrong.

Paul told the church, and the church told us. "You know" said Paul. "We know" said Tertullian.

Difference is Paul knew and had a level of understanding that none of the early church writers you quote achieved. This is obvious from reading their works. For example, does anyone disagree with Tertullian's works at any point? Was he ever point blank wrong? IF so, then the above assumption that he knew is wrong. Are you Catholic, by the way? THis view that one of the apostles told one's favourite church leader and therefore the church leader knew same as the apostle is very Catholic. That is the basis for their authority. Very Catholic. The Protestants go by the bible, not a man.

I showed you a map from about 410 which showed about 7 or 8 of the ten tribes.

In June 474, Julius Nepos became Western Emperor but in the next year the magister militum Orestes revolted and made his son Romulus Augustus emperor. Romulus, however, was not recognized by the Eastern Emperor Zeno and so was technically an usurper, Nepos still being the legal Western Emperor. Nevertheless, Romulus Augustus is often known as the last Western Roman Emperor. In 476, after being refused lands in Italy, Orestes' Germanic mercenaries under the leadership of the chieftain Odoacer captured and executed Orestes and took Ravenna, the Western Roman capital at the time, deposing Romulus Augustus. The whole of Italy was quickly conquered, and Odoacer was granted the title of patrician by Zeno, effectively recognizing his rule in the name of the Eastern Empire. Odoacer returned the Imperial insignia to Constantinople and ruled as King in Italy. Following Nepos' death Theodoric the Great, King of the Ostrogoths, conquered Italy with Zeno's approval.​

And before Julius? And after Theodoric? And these were not in league bringing down the Roman Empire. That was your claim.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the Western provinces were conquered by waves of Germanic invasions, most of them being disconnected politically from the East altogether and continuing a slow decline. Although Roman political authority in the West was lost, Roman culture would last in most parts of the former Western provinces into the 6th century and beyond.
The first invasions disrupted the West to some degree, but it was the Gothic War launched by the Eastern Emperor Justinianin the 6th century, and meant to reunite the Empire, that eventually caused the most damage to Italy, as well as straining the Eastern Empire militarily. Following these wars, Rome and other Italian cities would fall into severe decline (Rome itself was almost completely abandoned). Another blow came with the Persian invasion of the East in the 7th century, immediately followed by the Muslim conquests, especially of MachEgypt, which curtailed much of the key trade in the Mediterranean on which Europe depended. Wiki

​

According to Woodrow, Macchiavelli, the Roman historian described the empire being divided between the various Gothic tribes - their number being ten, Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths, Visgoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks and Saxons, "These have ever since been spoken of as the ten kingdoms that rose out of the Roman Empire. "

But you are calling all the Europeans Goths. This is not what I read. I do not think the French were Gothic tribes, nor the Germans. This is you trying to make it fit same and the 20th century church writers tried to make the EU fit the prophesy. And they actually were claiming the land they lived on at least. The Romans had taken it and they took it back. "Dividing the Roman empire" is like saying the French divided Nazi Germany. It was there before they lost it in war.

Some of the Early Christians who believed that the let and hindrance was the
Roman Empire and Emperor were:
Justin Martyr
Hyppolytus
Tertullian

Cyril of Jerusalem
Jerome

Some of the Earlier Christians who did not were:

John the apostle
Peter the apostle
Paul the apostle

Now I would like to know what you believe. As you seem to believe that the Antichrist was in the past, when did the ten horns appear before him.

I thank you for asking. That is rare that someone wants to know what the other believes. The antichrist is not mentioned in Revelation and so cannot be associated with the horns which are. John mentions antichrist or many antichrists in his letters, I believe but never in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to him on Patmos. There is no Antichrist in Revelation. There is the Beast and so on but no Antichrist.

You must also say that those early Christians got it wrong and also the Apostle Paul.

Tertillian? Yes. Paul? No. Paul did not rail on the Roman Empire as anything important at all. Tertillian did not learn from Paul obviously as his writings (Ter) do not match the level of understanding of Paul. He was not a disciple of Paul and so there is no direct connection.

Their information (early church) was gotten same as the 20th prophesy "experts," from reading the texts and trying to make them fit in with the events in their lifetimes. How much they were aware of the events in 70ad, I am not sure we know. This is, of course, crucial. If one never had heard of Alexander the Great, one would never know that he was the fulfillment of book of Daniel and the dream. Being informed as to the events of history is crucial in understanding these prophetic texts. If a man had never heard of Jesus and the details of his birth and life and death, he would never be able to interpret the prophesies as fulfilled.

Otherwise you must agree with the futurist stargazers, that the ten toes will be a revived Roman Empire.

Well, the breaker on that for me was moving to Europe. There is no indication of a revived Roman Empire coming out of Europe. First, the Italians are the very poor of Europe. Second, Europe is not the governmental body marching all over the world to set up their type of government and garrisons everywhere to protest their interests. Europe is pretty peaceful. So none of the qualities of Rome are seen in Europe other than it was the geographic point where the Roman Empire was. I think this fixation with the Roman Empire is not reflected in any of the writings of the new or old Testament. The christians in the 40s thought Hitler the Antichrist reviving a one world government too. This mistake has been made, interpreting scripture in the face of modern events. Fails each time.

They seem to believe that the Roman Empire ended centuries ago, which leaves the image in Daniel 2 suspended in air till the toes.

Unless it was fulfilled in 70AD, an absolute pivotal event in the Kingdom of God where the culmination of the Kingdom being taken away from the Jews was completed.

Why do you reject that idea? That the events in Matthew 24 and Revelation describe the attack of the Romans on Jerusalem and the Christians by Nero and shortly after him? That generation saw it. Those who pierced him saw it. He came in judgement as he said he would (coming in the clouds) because of their treatment of him and the Christians.

The details of the fulfillment I would have to again look up. As I recall there were ten Caesars or ten provences in Rome but my view does not hang on that number being fulfilled although I am satisfied it was. Shall I refresh my memory if this ten is important to you?

The important part to me is that the events were pivotal in the Kingdom of God (which Rome was not), they happened as Jesus said they would...within that generation, the temple was destroyed such that no two stones were left upon one another, the Christains living there saw it as the fulfillment and left town when the armies were surrounding Jerusalem, the way the event happened is as described (very horrible) in both old and new testament, and other matters that match. I found discovering that this was fulfilled in Jerusalem thrilling. Suddenly the book of Revelation opened up to me and I understand so much more it was amazing. It fits. And it was pivotal in the plan and Kingdom of God. The end of the Jewish age happened as Jesus said. It will never return.

But that is how I see it. I apologize for not having the details at my fingertips for you. I can look this up as I said. Thanks for the conversation. Enjoyed it.

​

[/QUOTE]

 

[claninja]

Unless it was fulfilled in 70AD, an absolute pivotal event in the Kingdom of God where the culmination of the Kingdom being taken away from the Jews was completed.

Exactly, the coming of the vineyard owner occurred in 70ad, at the destruction of Jerusalem:

40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard COMES, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” 43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.
Matthew 21:40-41,43,45 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 21:40-41, Matthew 21:43, Matthew 21:45 - English Standard Version

 

[claninja]

Just an interesting little excerpt from Samuel lee on Eusebius (265-340 AD), in one of his writings known as “the Theophania”:

All authorities concur in the declaration that “when all these things should have been done”, ‘The End’ should come: that “the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets“: it should be completed: time should now be no more: the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass: in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets: or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done: the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem–all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realised on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations; God’s holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished.

 

[David Kent]

Actually, none of them said that. They said that the Roman Empire would be divided among ten ten kings. But none of them said that these ten kings would conquer it.

How could they replace the empire without conquering it?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Just an interesting little excerpt from Samuel lee on Eusebius (265-340 AD), in one of his writings known as “the Theophania”:

All authorities concur in the declaration that “when all these things should have been done”, ‘The End’ should come: that “the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets“: it should be completed: time should now be no more: the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass: in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets: or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done: the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem–all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realised on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations; God’s holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished.

Did Eusebius say this? There are those who insist no one in those centuries said any such thing but thought the fall of Rome was it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

How could they replace the empire without conquering it?

But they didn’t replace it.

 

[claninja]

Did Eusebius say this? There are those who insist no one in those centuries said any such thing but thought the fall of Rome was it.

No, this is Samuel lee (1800s) on Eusebius’ theophania

 

[David Kent]

Are you Catholic, by the way?

Don't be ridiculous. The historicist teaching is the only anti Catholic view.
Preterism and Futurism are both Catholic teachings.

You have not answered, as I believe what I asked. What you believe?

The seven headed beast (Rome is mentioned in Daniel) as are the ten horns which come out of the beast. In Revelation the seven headed beast and the ten horns are brought together. In Revelation in one part, as I have already posted, the crowns are on the seven heads, and in the other, the crowns are on the ten horns, the states that replaced Rome.

Odoacer was a Gothic military leader in Italy who led the revolt of Herulian, Rugian, and Scirian soldiers tat deposed Romulus Augustulus on 4 September AD 476.



As it happens I mostly agree with you on the Olivet prophecy and the seventy weeks of Daniel. A great work on the seventy weeks may be found at



The Gospel of the Kingdom
(1927)

By Philip Mauro

Introduction:
THROUGH an incident of recent occurrence I was made aware of the extent--far greater than I had imagined--to which the modern system of dispensationalism has found acceptance amongst orthodox christians; and also of the extent--correspondingly great--to which the recently published "Scofield Bible" (which is the main vehicle of the new system of doctrine referred to) has usurped the place of authority that belongs to God's Bible alone.

The fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a "Bible" of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God. Ample proof of this will be given in the pages that follow.

 

[David Kent]

Are you Catholic, by the way?[/QUOTE

This link seems to have been lost in my previous post.

https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html

Another great book by Philip is also on he site

The Gospel of the Kingdom
(1927)

By Philip Mauro

Introduction:
THROUGH an incident of recent occurrence I was made aware of the extent--far greater than I had imagined--to which the modern system of dispensationalism has found acceptance amongst orthodox christians; and also of the extent--correspondingly great--to which the recently published "Scofield Bible" (which is the main vehicle of the new system of doctrine referred to) has usurped the place of authority that belongs to God's Bible alone.

The fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a "Bible" of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God. Ample proof of this will be given in the pages that follow.

 

[David Kent]

Extremely weak and foolish interpretation as that is not what happened, if the early church writers were so foolish. The writers of the Bible thought those events would take place in a manner of years and that is exactly what happened. The Roman empire played very little role in the plan of God, certainly not pivotal.

They were nearer to gospel time that you, and to call the foolish is actually to be foolish yourself unless you study what they actually said, and why.

What I believe is foolish is to follow Jesuit teaching, whether preterism or futurism.

 

[David Kent]

deleted as duplicated

 

[David Kent]

Just an interesting little excerpt from Samuel lee on Eusebius (265-340 AD), in one of his writings known as “the Theophania”:

All authorities concur in the declaration that “when all these things should have been done”, ‘The End’ should come: that “the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets“: it should be completed: time should now be no more: the End of all things (so foretold)

End of what things?

 

[David Kent]

Please provide actual quotations, not blanket assertions.

You say you have studied it , so you should know. I am an old man now and read it all in the past and don't have time to read it all again.

 

[Biblewriter]

You say you have studied it , so you should know. I am an old man now and read it all in the past and don't have time to read it all again.

I said that because I know that you cannot provide the quotations.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They were nearer to gospel time that you, and to call the foolish is actually to be foolish yourself unless you study what they actually said, and why.

What I believe is foolish is to follow Jesuit teaching, whether preterism or futurism.

Well, the Gnostics were really close to the time period and they were not closer to believing the truth. The Jews actually heard and saw Jesus and the apostles and they were not closer to the truth. Living longer ago does not bring anyone closer to the truth it seems.

The labels people use are to safe them the trouble of considering the truth of a matter. The problem is that the early church including John who wrote Revelation down believed the events were about to happen in their lifetime. The Christians who fled Jerusalem believed it as well. We do not need to read that they believed "soon" meant about to happen because their deeds say so. When John wrote "soon" coming from the mouth of Jesus and that many times, he would have thought the Lord was communicating truth. That is, not some 1000s of years later or even 100s of years. That would have been useless to them and the goal was to comfort them. He would have known that Daniel was told those events were not soon. Same events. John was told they were about to happen. It is o nly theologians who shrug their shoulders and think that John foolishly believed what Jesus said.

So quote all the 4th centuries writers you want. The first century Christians thought it was about to happen and it did. They, by the way, did not have any labels for those who believed it was about to happen and took comfort in the book of Revelation but simply believed what Jesus said. Lables come when people do not want to believe and need a cover for their unbelief. A label works well for that purpose.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

End of what things?

The Kingdom of God on Earth as it was known before 70AD. The fall of Rome meant little to the Kingdom of God. The fall of the Mosaic law and Judaism as was known to them until that day was pivotal. Tyrannies and governments come and go. Mosais law came and when it went, it went for good. It shall never be restored. The end of that age.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This link seems to have been lost in my previous post.

https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html

Another great book by Philip is also on he site

The Gospel of the Kingdom
(1927)

By Philip Mauro

Introduction:
THROUGH an incident of recent occurrence I was made aware of the extent--far greater than I had imagined--to which the modern system of dispensationalism has found acceptance amongst orthodox christians; and also of the extent--correspondingly great--to which the recently published "Scofield Bible" (which is the main vehicle of the new system of doctrine referred to) has usurped the place of authority that belongs to God's Bible alone.

The fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a "Bible" of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God. Ample proof of this will be given in the pages that follow.

Thanks for this. I will check the link later. I only learned about dispensationalism recently although the modern interpretations of Revelation I knew for decades. Did not know it came from this amost a heresy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

David Kent, I asked if you were Catholic because you have a very strong reliance on what people say, particularly what people said millennia ago that is not Bible. It is a Catholic idea to rely so unquestioningly on the teachings of men and if they lived long ago, then they are not to be questioned as if living long ago qualifies one for know more truth, not less. Frankly speaking, in most fields of study, living millennia ago means a man knew less than we do, not more. But your view is rather Catholic. You quote men and their thoughts on the Bible and are assured if all of them agreed (which I find very hard to believe since the disciples themselves did not agree on everything) then their view is not to be questioned. This is how the Catholics view the Bible. That a man or men have the authority on truth, not the book.