When was the Book of Revelation written?

[klutedavid]

Thanks for the reply.

So the church in Ephesus was perfect, with no sinners in it, as long as timothy was alive?

No church is perfect.

All churches overflow with forgiven sinners, even the apostles struggled with their own sin.

Of course any church can have problems. But we are talking about the first churches, churches founded by apostles. These churches had apostles and disciples who had seen the risen Christ, passing through their doors. The Holy Spirit was powerful and active in this decade and the previous decades.

It is highly unlikely that the church at Ephesus was in trouble in the sixties.

 

[claninja]

Thanks for the reply.

No church is perfect.

All churches overflow with forgiven sinners, even the apostles struggled with their own sin.

Of course any church can have problems. But we are talking about the first churches, churches founded by apostles. These churches had apostles and disciples who had seen the risen Christ, passing through their doors. The Holy Spirit was powerful and active in this decade and the previous decades.

It is highly unlikely that the church at Ephesus was in trouble in the sixties.

I disagree. The first churches definitely had troubles. I bet they even had troubles earlier than the sixties.

Galatians 2:11-13
But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

 

[klutedavid]

The problem, from what I have read, with Irenaeus is 3 fold:
1.) His reliability as a historian
a.) he records Jesus lived to between 40 and fifty years of age based on what he was taught.
b.) confuses James the apostle with James the brother of Jesus.
2.)The greek word 'was seen' could mean 'it' was seen or 'he' was seen. And typically, not always, is that when Iraneaus uses 'for' it involves people and not things.
"For that (john or vision) was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."
3.) Most church fathers base their belief on a domitian date because of this quote.

-Clement reports that the teachings of the apostles were until nero
-Clement also reports that John returned from patmos after the death of the tyrant. Nero was commonly called a tyrant. I can't say I have found the same of Domitian.
-tertullian reports that peter endured a passion like Jesus, Paul was beheaded, and John was boiled in oil before being exiled to patmos.
-It seems only Eusebius states that Domitian persecuted Christians and Jews. There appears to be no other sources to confirm this. While there are roman and church historians that confirm the persecution of Christians and Jews by Nero.
-Andreas of cappadocia (6th century) states stand for a Domitian date, but states that many of his contemporaries prefer a neronic date.
-Syriac version of Revelation begins with a statement saying John was exiled by Nero


-All this shows is that the external evidence is not conclusive. This has been debated for over 1000 years.



So in one sentence, it (the vision) was seen by John not long ago, almost in irenaeus' time, but in another sentence there are ancient copies of revelation? That doesn't really make sense.



While I disagree with Epiphanius (315-403), he states that John was banished under Claudius Caeser. Should we take this as truth without weighing the other evidence



The events of 70ad were the days of vengeance, explicitly directed at the those in matthew 23.

Or how about Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

which paul states has fulfilled

colossians 1:23 indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creationd under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.



So revelation is something new that has never been revealed before? It has no references to the OT or other books in NT?



unfortunately no, you will have to look up the dates if you want specifics. Otherwise note they are pre-70ad.



So not fully known



Thank you for this!

If you want to reject Irenaeus then you are effectively rejecting the canon of the New Testament.

Irenaeus asserted that four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were canonical scripture.[35] Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel.
(wikipedia)

I do not think that the overall historical reliability of Irenaeus, is at all questioned. Sure he may have made a mistake here and there, but as far as church history and the scripture is concerned.

Irenaeus is also the earliest attestation that the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle,[39] and that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the companion of Paul.[40] Scholars[specify] contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament Texts...(wikipedia)

 

[claninja]

If you want to reject Irenaeus then you are effectively rejecting the canon of the New Testament.

Irenaeus asserted that four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were canonical scripture.[35] Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel.
(wikipedia)

Is Irenaeus the only one who supported 4 gospels?


Irenaeus believed Jesus lived into his 40-50s too. He believed the gospel and elders testified to this. Should I believe that too?

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

 

[klutedavid]

Is Irenaeus the only one who supported 4 gospels?


Irenaeus believed Jesus lived into his 40-50s too. He believed the gospel and elders testified to this. Should I believe that too?

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

Your judging the entire works of Irenaeus on the basis of a mistake, a mistake in describing the age of Jesus.

If your going to apply the blow torch to every author in the first three hundred years. Then church history and the New Testament will vanish right before your eyes.

You need to spend some time and do your research on Ireneaus.

The gospels themselves all vary regarding the resurrection accounts, do we throw them in the bin also?

 

[claninja]

I do not think that the overall historical reliability of Irenaeus, is at all questioned. Sure he may have made a mistake here and there, but as far as church history and the scripture is concerned.

If he has any unreliability at all, then we should test what he says against what others have said in regards to the date of revelation. So what other source for post 70ad can we use to test the reliability of Irenaeus statement?

Epiphanius (314-430) states John was exile by Claudius Caesar. Should we take this as fact or test it against another source?

 

[claninja]

Your judging the entire works of Irenaeus on the basis of a mistake, a mistake in describing the age of Jesus.

If your going to apply the blow torch to every author in the first three hundred years. Then church history and the New Testament will vanish right before your eyes.

You need to spend some time and do your research on Ireneaus.

Nothing should be taken as single piece of evidence, it all needs to be looked at together.

The gospels themselves all vary regarding the resurrection accounts, do we throw them in the bin also?

No, they should all be compared with one another. If I choose one and throw out the rest, then I am doing poor research.

 

[klutedavid]

If he has any unreliability at all, then we should test what he says against what others have said in regards to the date of revelation. So what other source for post 70ad can we use to test the reliability of Irenaeus statement?

Epiphanius (314-430) states John was exile by Claudius Caesar. Should we take this as fact or test it against another source?

You need the earliest authors you can find to establish the authenticity of the New Testament canon.

The earliest author is Marcion, a heretic. At least Marcion mentions the gospels he rejects and the gospel he favors, i.e., Luke. Unfortunately for us, he is the first we cite to begin to establish the canon of the N.T.

The second earliest author is Ireneaus, who mentions and quotes from the four gospels.

The canon of the New Testament is what becomes untenable if you reject Irenaeus.

 

[klutedavid]

Nothing should be taken as single piece of evidence, it all needs to be looked at together.



No, they should all be compared with one another. If I choose one and throw out the rest, then I am doing poor research.

YES, you need to do the research yourself. Don't trust any one or any church especially.

When it comes to basic facts about the NT canon that Christians should memorize, one of the most critical is the statement by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, around A.D. 180: “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds… [and] the cherubim, too, were four-faced.”[1]
(Michael J. Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary)

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The papacy is the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Roman emperors were considered divine, the Pope is considered divine. The Emperors called themselves PONT MAX, the Popes call themselves PONT MAX. The emperors murdered thousand of Christians the Popes have murdered millions.
The Popes call themselves Vicar of Christ, which means in place of Christ or Vice Christ. Antichrist means the same in Greek.

None of those things are unique. All emperors of all empires were considered divine. All empires , kingdoms and their established religions slaughtered Christians. Dictators kill Christians. So that in and of itself does not point to the fulfillment of prophecy. The reason those particular prophecies about the four gentile empires are in there is to give us a timeline as to when the age of promise would come. At the end of the Roman Empire which was 1453 AD. Up until that time all Christians in all lands were warred against and overcome by despotic governments. What happened that changed all that and ushered us into the free world so many of us that have had the Gospel preached to us in power for centuries now so enjoy? Amazingly the very year the Roman empire was destroyed. The first commercial printing press went on line. Within a few decades there were dozens of commercial printing presses across Europe and they began to illegally crank out Bibles. Even more than this crank them out in the language of the peoples. Since you know about the Roman church and the Holy Roman Empire; at this conjuncture then you know that just the possession of one of these Bibles without official authorization would get one burned at the stake or worse.

For the first time in history something happened that was never seen before. Bibles got into the hands of the general public in their language. This occurred in Northern Europe. Southern Europe raised a great army to deal with this as it always had. By wiping out the peoples who were getting Bibles. Then another thing happened that had not occurred since the days of Ancient Israel. The bad guys lost, or at least were fought to a stand still. At the cost of tens of millions of lives I might add. The first republic based in Biblical principle then arose and became a dominate power in the earth. The Dutch Republic, for 200 years. Citizenship requirements for men included daily Bible reading, firearm ownership and militia duty. Compare that to the previous 1400 years where the "Christian world" did not have Bibles and what was in them were kept from them by the authorities. Another significant factor was the discovery of the America's. Bible possessing and reading Northern Europeans migrated to North America. Since there were no large modern armies and empires to oppose them, they were able to set up colonial governments based on the thinking that had developed by a Bible reading Northern European public. Amazing that God knew all this would happen 2000 years before it did and prophesied exactly when it would start in the book of Daniel and the rest of the prophets and finally in Revelation.

This has been spreading ever since. There are well over 100 chapters of Bible prophecy that speak explicitly of this age of promise. The age when finally, all the earthly promises of God made to hundreds of generations of saints. Promises that never came to pass in their generations. Are now coming to pass in nations that meet the conditions. That is why it is important to get this right. If you know these things then you know the path forward and the hope of the good things that lay ahead. Here is an article I wrote called: What is the government of God. Goes through some of this stuff but mostly shows with just a couple of scriptures; how the prophesied government that was to come fills the earth.

What Is The Government Of God?

.

 

[klutedavid]

None of those things are unique. All emperors of all empires were considered divine. All empires , kingdoms and their established religions slaughtered Christians. Dictators kill Christians. So that in and of itself does not point to the fulfillment of prophecy. The reason those particular prophecies about the four gentile empires are in there is to give us a timeline as to when the age of promise would come. At the end of the Roman Empire which was 1453 AD. Up until that time all Christians in all lands were warred against and overcome by despotic governments. What happened that changed all that and ushered us into the free world so many of us that have had the Gospel preached to us in power for centuries now so enjoy? Amazingly the very year the Roman empire was destroyed. The first commercial printing press went on line. Within a few decades there were dozens of commercial printing presses across Europe and they began to illegally crank out Bibles. Even more than this crank them out in the language of the peoples. Since you know about the Roman church and the Holy Roman Empire; at this conjuncture then you know that just the possession of one of these Bibles without official authorization would get one burned at the stake or worse.

For the first time in history something happened that was never seen before. Bibles got into the hands of the general public in their language. This occurred in Northern Europe. Southern Europe raised a great army to deal with this as it always had. By wiping out the peoples who were getting Bibles. Then another thing happened that had not occurred since the days of Ancient Israel. The bad guys lost, or at least were fought to a stand still. At the cost of tens of millions of lives I might add. The first republic based in Biblical principle then arose and became a dominate power in the earth. The Dutch Republic, for 200 years. Citizenship requirements for men included daily Bible reading, firearm ownership and militia duty. Compare that to the previous 1400 years where the "Christian world" did not have Bibles and what was in them were kept from them by the authorities. Another significant factor was the discovery of the America's. Bible possessing and reading Northern Europeans migrated to North America. Since there were no large modern armies and empires to oppose them, they were able to set up colonial governments based on the thinking that had developed by a Bible reading Northern European public. Amazing that God knew all this would happen 2000 years before it did and prophesied exactly when it would start in the book of Daniel and the rest of the prophets and finally in Revelation.

This has been spreading ever since. There are well over 100 chapters of Bible prophecy that speak explicitly of this age of promise. The age when finally, all the earthly promises of God made to hundreds of generations of saints. Promises that never came to pass in their generations. Are now coming to pass in nations that meet the conditions. That is why it is important to get this right. If you know these things then you know the path forward and the hope of the good things that lay ahead. Here is an article I wrote called: What is the government of God. Goes through some of this stuff but mostly shows with just a couple of scriptures; how the prophesied government that was to come fills the earth.

What Is The Government Of God?

.

Hello, you stated.

At the end of the Roman Empire which was 1453 AD.

That date of 1453 AD seems a bit late in history.

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire

By 476 when Odoacer deposed the Emperor Romulus, the Western Roman Emperor wielded negligible military, political, or financial power and had no effective control over the scattered Western domains that could still be described as Roman. Invading barbarians had established their own power in most of the area of the Western Empire. While its legitimacy lasted for centuries longer and its cultural influence remains today, the Western Empire never had the strength to rise again. (wikipedia)

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Hello, you stated.

That date of 1453 AD seems a bit late in history.

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire

By 476 when Odoacer deposed the Emperor Romulus, the Western Roman Emperor wielded negligible military, political, or financial power and had no effective control over the scattered Western domains that could still be described as Roman. Invading barbarians had established their own power in most of the area of the Western Empire. While its legitimacy lasted for centuries longer and its cultural influence remains today, the Western Empire never had the strength to rise again. (wikipedia)

The Capitol of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople in 333 AD. The western emperor was the lesser of two equals. There never ceased to be an emperor on the throne until it fell. This was prophesied by the animal that looked like lamb but spoke as a dragon. The two horns are the eastern and western branch. It looks like a lamb were it’s claims of Christianity. Speaks as a dragon doesn’t need any explanation.

 

[klutedavid]

The Capitol of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople in 333 AD. The western emperor was the lesser of two equals. There never ceased to be an emperor on the throne until it fell. This was prophesied by the animal that looked like lamb but spoke as a dragon. The two horns are the eastern and western branch. It looks like a lamb were it’s claims of Christianity. Speaks as a dragon doesn’t need any explanation.

You said.

The Capitol of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople in 333 AD.

What has that got to do with the fall of the Roman Empire?

I will repeat.

By 476 when Odoacer deposed the Emperor Romulus, the Western Roman Emperor wielded negligible military, political, or financial power and had no effective control over the scattered Western domains that could still be described as Roman.
(wikipedia)

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

You said.

What has that got to do with the fall of the Roman Empire?

I will repeat.

By 476 when Odoacer deposed the Emperor Romulus, the Western Roman Emperor wielded negligible military, political, or financial power and had no effective control over the scattered Western domains that could still be described as Roman.
(wikipedia)

What does the capitol of the Roman Empire have to do with the Roman Empire???? Constantine moved it there, do you know who he was? Justinian re conquered the western empire from the "barbarians" and militarily installed the pope....twice. Didn't last long though. If you think that's not Roman. Septimius Severus, 193 AD was the first non Roman emperor. His son, the next emperor, an African made all non slaves in the entire empire Roman Citizens. Italian emperors were no longer a factor in the empire Remember here also we are talking Bible prophecy not what some historians call history. It called the four divisions of the Greek empire that lasted a few hundred years the Greek empire. Here is just one of many lists made by professional historians that call it the Roman Empire.
Roman Emperors - The Imperial Index

 

[claninja]

You need the earliest authors you can find to establish the authenticity of the New Testament canon.

The earliest author is Marcion, a heretic. At least Marcion mentions the gospels he rejects and the gospel he favors, i.e., Luke. Unfortunately for us, he is the first we cite to begin to establish the canon of the N.T.

The second earliest author is Ireneaus, who mentions and quotes from the four gospels.

The canon of the New Testament is what becomes untenable if you reject Irenaeus.

The muratorian fragment (~170 AD) is a copy of a list of NT books. It includes 4 gospels, including Luke as the 3rd and John as the 4th, the first are not named specifically.

This is another source that can be tested against Irenaeus' claim of 4 gospels. As we can see, Irenaeus is not the only person who supported 4 gospels. Again, considering that there are several errors in Irenaeus' writing (jesus' age is not the only one), we should test anything he writes against other sources. The maratorian confirms 4 gospels, thus confirming Ireneaus' claim of 4 gospels.

So I'll ask again, is there any other source that can confirm the dating of revelation that Irenaeus gave?

Additionally, it's interesting to note that Paul was, according to the Muratorian fragment, "following the rule of his predecessor John" by writing to no more than seven Churches. This means John had set this precedent of writing to 7 Churches BEFORE Paul finished his writings.

The canon of the New Testament is what becomes untenable if you reject Irenaeus.

I don't reject Ireneaus' claim of 4 gospels, as it can be confirmed with at least 1 other source. Should I accept Ireneaus' claim of Jesus living to 40-50 years old without confirming it with other sources?

So, is there any other source that can confirm the dating of revelation that Irenaeus gave?

 

[Colter]

Please state whether you believe Revelation was written either post 70 AD or Pre 70 AD.

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

between 81-96 during the rein of Domitian because that's when he was banished to Patmos.

According to the Urantia revelation 1955, Johns understudy wrote the Gospel of John which was common in the age. John himself wrote the BOR, at least the surviving, unaltered portions. That's why scholars see 2 different writers when in fact they both came from John.

 

[klutedavid]

The muratorian fragment (~170 AD) is a copy of a list of NT books. It includes 4 gospels, including Luke as the 3rd and John as the 4th, the first are not named specifically.

This is another source that can be tested against Irenaeus' claim of 4 gospels. As we can see, Irenaeus is not the only person who supported 4 gospels. Again, considering that there are several errors in Irenaeus' writing (jesus' age is not the only one), we should test anything he writes against other sources. The maratorian confirms 4 gospels, thus confirming Ireneaus' claim of 4 gospels.

So I'll ask again, is there any other source that can confirm the dating of revelation that Irenaeus gave?

Additionally, it's interesting to note that Paul was, according to the Muratorian fragment, "following the rule of his predecessor John" by writing to no more than seven Churches. This means John had set this precedent of writing to 7 Churches BEFORE Paul finished his writings.



I don't reject Ireneaus' claim of 4 gospels, as it can be confirmed with at least 1 other source. Should I accept Ireneaus' claim of Jesus living to 40-50 years old without confirming it with other sources?

So, is there any other source that can confirm the dating of revelation that Irenaeus gave?

Clement of Alexandria

Follows the tradition

hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus

Tertullian

Tertullian mentions the liberation of those who were banished by Domitian. But, while he doesn’t mention the apostle John, however, there can be made a correspondence between Domitian act of banishment and the exile of John to Patmos island.

Origen

'The King of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore testimony, on account of the truth, to the isle of Patmos.' In this short phrase Origen doesn’t say who he means by “the King of the Romans,” but the next few words from the same sentence – “as tradition teaches” – points to Domitian as the king, because this tradition is the same tradition to which Irenaeus alludes, or as Smith puts it “at that time there was no other tradition in the church.

On and on it goes, no one is willing to depart from the tradition.

This seems to be the early church tradition.

I do not see any relevance in how old Irenaeus thinks Jesus might be?

Do you have any external evidence for an early date?

 

[klutedavid]

What does the capitol of the Roman Empire have to do with the Roman Empire????

You only need to use one question mark.

Revelations is talking about the harlot, the city, i.e., Rome, not the Roman empire.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

You only need to use one question mark.

Revelations is talking about the harlot, the city, i.e., Rome, not the Roman empire.

Yes it does talk about great judgment's against the city of Rome but that is just part of the prophecies within the context of the Roman Empire as a whole. In fact the seven trumpets which are repeated later as seven plagues are prophecies of the specific judgments against the city of Rome. They affected the entire empire but did not end it. Those judgments ended in 546 AD when the city was conquered for the third time (most likely the 3 woes) and totally depopulated. This all culminated with the greatest disaster the world had know since the flood. Perhaps half the worlds population perished during the is 7th "trumpet" or "plague." Something happened. A meteor or a volcano darkened the planet for three years. Nations all over the world recorded it. Nothing grew for five years. It was said 10,000 people a day were dying in Constantinople. Undoubted many species of animals went extinct. This was world wide. Many great civilizations around the world disappeared. Archeologists who don't know about this event guess at those dates those civilizations disappeared but it is probably all tied to this event. However the seven thunders were still future and believe it or not the Bible gives the date of the end of the empire in 1453 AD seven times.
SUPER VOLCANO! Global Cataclysim in 535 AD!

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

So which ones of these did Antichrist overthrown and who was he ? He is supposed to kill 3 of them.

Year of the Four Emperors - Wikipedia