When was the Book of Revelation written?

[1stcenturylady]

Seeing as Domitian's reign was 81 A.D. TO 96 A.D. this puts the writing of Revelation long after the temple was destroyed, therefore the prophecies contained in the book of Revelation about the coming of Christ is future.

 

[David Kent]

At the end of the Roman Empire which was 1453 AD

Actually that was not the Roman Empire but the Byzantine Empire.

• 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
• 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Constantine removed the Empire, what withholdeth, and the Emperor, he that letteth, in AD 330, allowing the man of sin,the papacy, to be revealed in his time. It was nearly 300 years later in AD 607 that the emperor Phocas named the Bishop of Rome as "Universal Bishop." A title that came into effect on the death of Phocas in AD 610. The power of the Papacy was as great or greater than any other Roman Emperor for 1260 years (days in prophecy) till he had his dominions taken away in AD 1870.

 

[David Kent]

Seeing as Domitian's reign was 81 A.D. TO 96 A.D. this puts the writing of Revelation long after the temple was destroyed, therefore the prophecies contained in the book of Revelation about the coming of Christ is future.

The temple in Revelation refers to the Church.

 

[David Kent]

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

Exactly. Irenius was probably referring to the Jews saying that Jesus was "not yet 40 years old" He may not have calculated the length of the ministry of Jesus and as Jesus was still alive when they said that.

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 1.

All this is very interesting, but none of it has conclusive information, backed up by explicit citations of ancient writers, which are always critical in such cases.

I will join this fray with an article I wrote in 2013. It is long, so it will have to be posted in parts. I will try to arrange these parts such that each one deals with a different subject.

In recent years there has come to be a considerable amount of debate about when the Revelation, or the Apocalypse, as it is sometimes called, was given. Essentially all of this debate has been driven by arguments advanced by a group who call themselves Preterists. This word comes from the Latin word preterit, which was their name for the past perfect tense. That is, it refers to events or actions that were completed in the past. These people insist that all (but some of them only say most) of the events prophesied in the Bible have already taken place. As a part of this doctrine, they insist that the main subject of the Revelation was the destruction of Jerusalem, which is believed to have taken place in the year 70 A.D. Thus, it is absolutely critical for a Preterist to insist that the Revelation was written before that time. The Preterists use the term “Futurists” to refer to those who believe that at least most of these prophesies remain to fulfilled in the future. They claim that only futurists think the Revelation was written after Jerusalem had been destroyed. But this is simply incorrect.

Futurists really could care less when the Revelation was written, for to them that date is completely irrelevant. To them, its meaning is exactly the same whether it was written before or after Jerusalem was destroyed. The same is true of secular historians. Their entire interest in when any event took place is historical accuracy. They could care less what the date was. They only want to correctly determine that date, whenever it was. So why, then, do essentially all scholars who are not Preterists agree that the Revelation was written more than twenty years after Jerusalem was destroyed?

This is so widely accepted among essentially all unprejudiced historians because an overwhelming majority of the earlier Christian writers, those called the “Church Fathers” were in agreement about information that indicates that the Revelation was given a few years after A.D. 90.

The earliest such comment we know about is one by Irenaeus, who wrote, “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, paragraph 3. 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, reprinted Peabody, 1996, vol 1.) This is thought to have been written between 186 and 188 A.D.

Preterists claim that the words “That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domation’s reign.” Refer to John, rather than to his vision. But when we consider the point Irenaeus was making, we see that this cannot be correct. He told us why he had decided not to name the Antichrist. It was because if that knowledge was needed at that time, it would have been announced in “the apocalyptic vision.” Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, “for he was seen no very long time since...” He said “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.” Using the word “that,” rather than “he,” clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.

Some of the more radical Preterists, determined to reject this testimony of Irenaeus, claim that his words "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day..." cannot refer to "the apocalyptic vision," because they claim that Irenaeus usually used the word "seen" with reference to persons, but not for things (like visions.) But this is clearly incorrect. For in this same "Against Heresies," Irenaeus repeatedly used the word "seen" with reference both to visions and to things seen in visions. He used it in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 10, saying, "This, too, was made still clearer by Ezekiel, that the prophets saw the dispensations of God in part, but not actually God Himself. For when this man had seen the vision of God, and the cherubim, and their wheels..." He used it again in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 12, saying, "However, it was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that He was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them He might prefigure and show forth future events beforehand." He used it again in book 5, chapter 26, paragraph 1, saying, "He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: ‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast.'" He used it again in the same paragraph, saying, "Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar..." He used it again in book 5, chapter 28, paragraph 2 of this work, saying, "John has thus described in the Apocalypse: 'And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard...' "(All of these comments can be found in the same volume 1 of "Ante-Nicene Fathers" that was previously cited for "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus.) So, contrary to the claim made by these Preterists, Irenaeus often used the word "seen" in regard to things (like visions.)

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 2.

But after claiming that Irenaeus did not say that the Revelation was seen “towards the end of Domatian’s reign,” Preterists then claim that all other ancient writers that say the Revelation was given in the reign of Domitian were simply relying on the word of Irenaeus. They do not even seem to notice the logical contradiction of claiming that this is not what Irenaeus said, and also claiming that everyone else who said the same thing was simply relying on his word. But aside from the logical contradiction, this claim is demonstrably incorrect.

For Victornius wrote, “‘And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.’ He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Cæsar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.” (“Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John,” by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 10:11, translated by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. 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, reprinted Peabody, 1994 vol 7.) This is thought to have been written in the late third century.

We need to notice two details in this statement. Victorinus said that “when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Cæsar Domitian,” and that “John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse.” Since Irenaeus did not state either of these details, they are conclusive proof that this statement by Victorinus was based on information other than the statement by Irenaeus.

Again, the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John” gives a long and detailed account of John’s arrest and trial, including the fact that Domitian was the son of Vespasian and reigned after him. And then it says, “And when all were glorifying God, and wondering at the faith of John, Domitian said to him: I have put forth a decree of the senate, that all such persons should be summarily dealt with, without trial; but since I find from thee that they are innocent, and that their religion is rather beneficial, I banish thee to an island, that I may not seem myself to do away with my own decrees.” (“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, reprinted Peabody, 1994, vol 8, pp. 561-562.) This is thought to have been written sometime during the second century.

The extreme detail of this account is proof that it is not based on either of the other two statements we have examined which link John’s time in Patmos with Domatian. But this account does not mention the fact that John was condemned to work in the mines or the fact that he published the Revelation after he was released, as stated by Victornius. So even as the statements of Victornius have to be based on a source other than Irenaeus, they also have to be based on a source other than the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John.” Thus there are at least three independent ante-Nicene sources that all say either that John was exiled “to an island” by Domitian, or that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian.

In addition to this, in the Post-Nicene period Jerome said concerning John that “In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.” (“Lives of Illustrious Men,” by Jerome, chapter 9. - From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol.3.) We must notice that none of the three earlier accounts mentioned John returning to Ephesus under Pertinax. Thus, Jerome’s account was based, at least in part, on information that did not come from any of the three ante-Nicene accounts we have examined. So now we have the same information from four ancient sources, every one of which included at least some details that none of the others contained. (None of the other accounts also mentioned Domatian’s acts having been annulled by the senate or his excessive cruelty, but as these were commonly known facts of history, they would not have needed to come from information specifically about John.)

So, contrary to the claims of Preterists, there were at least four independent ancient sources that indicated that the Revelation was written during the reign of Domatian. These four accounts have been presented together to demonstrate that every one of them contained at least some information that was not included in any of the others. But in addition to these four independent statements, there were also numerous other such statements made by these and other early Christian writers.

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 3.

In addition to the statement quoted above, Victorinus also wrote, “‘And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he is come, he will be for a short time.’] The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit. ‘The other has not yet come,’ speaks of Nerva; ‘and when he is come, he will be for a short time,’ for he did not complete the period of two years.” (“Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John,” by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 17:10, tran. by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. 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, reprinted Peabody, 1994 vol 7.)

Likewise, after Jerome’s statement we have already noticed, he also said, “John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in.” (“Against Jovinianus,” by Jerome, Book I, chapter 26. From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 6.)
A work attributed to Hyppolytus, who wrote shortly after Irenaeus, said, “John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.” (From “Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, Containing Dubious and Spurious Pieces,” item 49, section 3. 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 5.)

Again, Sulpitius Severus said, “Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.” (“The Sacred History Of Sulpitius Severus,” book 2, chapter 31. - From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 11.)

We need to notice that none of these quotations contained any reference whatsoever to the statement of Irenaeus that is alleged to be the source of all of them. In actual fact, the only other source (from this general time period) that even mentioned that statement by Irenaeus was the famous church historian Eusebius, who wrote:

“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.
“It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
“Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:
“‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.’” (“Church History,” by Eusebius, book 3, chapters 17 and 18. From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 1.)

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 4.

There is only one source that is unquestionably previous to the sixth century and clearly said the Revelation was written before the reign of Domatian. That was Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote a series of books called the Panarion, which are thought to date from between 374 and 377. In this work Epiphanius first said, "Later, therefore, though from caution and humility he had declined to be an evangelist, the Holy Spirit compelled John to issue the Gospel in his old age when he was past ninety, after his return from Patmos, under Claudius Caesar, and several years of his residence in Asia." (“The Panarion,” by Epiphanius, Section IV, paragraph 12.2, from “The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salmis, Books II and III, tran. by Frank Williams, ed. by J. M. Robinson and H. J. Klimkeit, pub. by E. J. Brill, 1994, pg 36. Available online at: http://www.ebooks-share.net/the-panarion-of
-epiphanius-of-salamis-books-ii-and-iii-de-fide-nag-hammadi-and-manichaean-studies/) Further on in the same volume, he also wrote, “St. John, who prophesied before his falling asleep, during the time of Claudius Caesar and earlier, when he was on the isle of Patmos." (“The Panarion,” by Epiphanius, Section IV, paragraph 33.8, from pg. 66 in the volume previously cited.)

It is unreasonable to argue that this is even close to a reliable witness, for Epiphanius has John having prophesied not only during the time of Claudius, but perhaps even earlier, for he has him returning from Patmos “under Claudius Caesar.” The Christian Classics Ethereal Library says of Epiphanius, “He was lacking in knowledge of the world and of men, in sound judgment, and in critical discernment. He was possessed of a boundless credulity, now almost proverbial, causing innumerable errors and contradictions in his writings.” History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library Even the Preterist website Bible.org says of these statements by Epiphanius, “Unfortunately, Ephiphanius is also another example of inconsistent credibility in historical matters, in one place, for instance, making the unusual claim that Priscilla was a man! Therefore, this witness, too, must be taken with a grain of salt.” Chapter 3: Dating the Apocalypse So this lone voice of any writer provable to be previous to the sixth century is widely recognized as historically unreliable.

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 5.

Preterists make much of one other ancient document which includes a statement that, if it were correct, would prove the Revelation was written very early, even though it does not say that. This is called the Muratorian Canon, and says, “the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown—i.e., by this sevenfold writing— that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all.” (“Canon Muratorianus,” author unknown, paragraph 3. 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 5.) As the last of Paul’s epistles are thought to have been written around A.D. 64, this implies that the Revelation was written before A. D. 64.

This document is usually dated to the late second century because its fourth paragraph said, “The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome.” But what do we actually know about the Muratorian Canon? It is actually a single sheet from a codex style manuscript. This single sheet obviously does not contain the entirety of the original document, so it is called the Muratorian Fragment. And the codex in which it is found is called Codex Muratorius, or sometimes the Muratorian Manuscript. In the nineteenth century this manuscript was examined in detail by Brooke Faust Wescott. This is the same Wescott of Wescott and Hort fame, who has pronounced favorably on manuscripts that numerous others, including the writer of this paper, completely reject. But here his judgment was exactly the opposite. He wrote concerning the “Muratorian Fragment:”

“The fragment from Ambrose (De Abrahamo, 1. 3. 15) which follows the Fragment on the Canon furnishes a fair criterion of the accuracy to be expected from the scribe. And by a remarkable accident the piece is more than usually instructive, for the whole fragment is repeated. Thus we have two copies of the same original and their divergence is a certain index of the inaccuracy of the transcriber which cannot be gainsaid. The second copy differs from the first in the following places:... [Here Wescott gave a line by line list of the differences in these fragments.]
“Thus in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, (p. 11b 29), two other omissions which destroy the sense completely (p. 12a 11 merito, I9 dicitur), one substitution equally destructive of the sense (p. 12a 9 decem et octo for τ), and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. 12a 6 scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from regard simply to the supposed form of words...
“On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source from which it was taken. But these errors are such as in several cases could not be rectified without other authorities for comparison.
“In the sheet which precedes the Fragment on the Canon the same phenomena appear. There is in that also the same ignorance of construction: the same false criticism: the same confusion of letters and terminations. If we now apply the results gained from the examination of the context to the Fragment on the Canon, part of it at least can be restored with complete certainty; and part may be pronounced hopelessly corrupt. It has been shown that a fragment of thirty lines contains three serious omissions and at least two other changes of words wholly destructive of the sense, and it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long. Other evidence shows that conjecture would have been unable to supply what is wanting or satisfactorily correct what is wrong in the one case, and there is no reason to hope it would be happier in the other.” (“A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament,” by Brooke Faust Wescott D.D., London, Macmillian and Company, 1866, 4th ed., 1875, pp. 522-524. - original not highlighted as shown here) The entirety of this book can be viewed online at: A general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament

So we see that the famous textural critic, Wescott, who has been widely criticized for accepting questionable manuscripts, concluded that the scribe who copied out the Muratorian Canon was “given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him,” and that the known errors in the Manuscript “are such as in several cases could not be rectified without other authorities for comparison.”

But what “other authorities” do we have for comparison? The only known other copies of any portion of this Canon are twenty-four of its eighty-five lines included in a Prologue to the Epistles of Paul. This Prologue is contained in three eleventh century and one twelfth century manuscripts of the Corpus Paulinum at the Benedictine monastery on Monte Cassino, and was first published in Miscellanea Cassinese, ii (1897). These can be found in “The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” by Geoffery Mark Hahneman, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1992, pp. 9-10. Unfortunately, this book has not been published online, but it can be purchased online at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198263414/peterkirby

The actual facts about the Muratorian Manuscript were cited by Wescott as: “The Manuscript (Bibl. Ambros. Cod 101 ) in which the Canon is contained was brought from Columban’s famous monastery at Bibbo. It may therefore probably be of Irish origin or descent, though there is nothing in the Manuscript itself, as far as I could observe, which proves this to be the case. It was written probably in the eighth (or seventh) century, and contains a miscellaneous collection of Latin fragments, including passages from Eucherius, Ambrose, translations from Chrystosom, and brief expositions of the Catholic Creed.” (pp. 514-515 of the volume previously cited.)

So, although many conclude that the Muratorian Canon was written in the late second century, all we really know about its date is that its earliest known example was supposedly copied out in the seventh or eighth century, by an ignorant and careless scribe “given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him.” That is, it came out of the third or fourth century of the Medieval period of ignorance, long after the facts of history had been forgotten, and myth and superstition reigned supreme. As this was around five or six hundred years after the assumed date of the original, any amount of corruption of the original text was possible. No other scribe copied out any portion of this account until three or four hundred more years of this same Medieval darkness, although four copies of that work were made. These four other copies did include the comment about Paul following the rule of his predecessor John, but since the earliest known copy of this statement comes from long after the beginning of the Medieval period of ignorance, the Muratorian Canon cannot rationally be considered historically reliable as evidence for when the Revelation was given.

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 6.

Again, Preterists claim that the writings of Clement of Alexandria prove that the Revelation was written in the time of Nero, not Domitian. But what did Clement actually say?

“For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius.
“And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.” (“The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” by Clement of Alexandria, book 7, chapter 17, paragraph 4, 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. 2.) This is the only apparently reliable and provably early quotation advanced by Preterists that seems to be a denial of what the others said, but that is not necessarily the case. For Clement only explicitly said the epistles of Paul ended with Nero. And he could have been considering the Revelation to be a subsequent teaching directly from the Lord himself, (Revelation 1:1, 22:16) and that John was simply acting as a secretary who recorded what the Lord had said. (Revelation 1:11,19).

In addition to this statement by Clement, Preterist build great arguments based on another of his statements. For he also said, "And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." (“Salvation of the Rich Man,” by Clement of Alexandria, chapter 42, tran. by Rev. William Wilson, M.A. 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. 2.)

Preterists claim that Clement’s words “the tyrant” in this statement have to mean Nero, claiming that it was primarily Nero who was called “the tyrant.” In defense of this claim they sometimes quote Tertullian as having said, “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.) Preterists like to stress the words, “he had something of the human in him,” and the words “he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.” But among the ancient Christian writers, Tertullian stands alone in using such soft words concerning Domitian. And even in this same account, Tertullian said Domitian was “a man of Nero’s type in cruelty.” But let us examine what others said of Domitian.

Remember that Eusebius said, “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.” (“Church History,” by Eusebius, cited above.)

“The Marterdom of Ignatius” said, “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.) Although the author is indeed unknown, the last chapter of this work said, “Having ourselves been eye-witnesses of these things...” (chapter 7 of the work cited above.) Again, in the portion of the account that describes their voyage to Rome, the pronoun “he” was twice changed to “we.” (Toward the end of chapter 5 and the beginning of chapter 6.) So the author of this account plainly represented himself to have been a compaion of Ignatius and an eyewitness of his martyrdom, and thus someone who actually experienced “the many persecutions under Domitian.”

Lactantius said, “After an interval of some years from the death of Nero, there arose another tyrant no less wicked (Domitian), who, although his government was exceedingly odious, for a very long time oppressed his subjects, and reigned in security, until at length he stretched forth his impious hands against the Lord. Having been instigated by evil demons to persecute the righteous people, he was then delivered into the power of his enemies, and suffered due punishment. To be murdered in his own palace was not vengeance ample enough: the very memory of his name was erased. For although he had erected many admirable edifices, and rebuilt the Capitol, and left other distinguished marks of his magnificence, yet the senate did so persecute his name, as to leave no remains of his statues, or traces of the inscriptions put up in honour of him; and by most solemn and severe decrees it branded him, even after death, with perpetual infamy. Thus, the commands of the tyrant having been rescinded, the Church was not only restored to her former state, but she shone forth with additional splendour, and became more and more flourishing.” (“Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died,” by Lactantius, chapter 3, tran. by Rev. William Wilson, M.A. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. by Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. by Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 7.)

Augustin called hin “the cruel Domitian,” saying, “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.)

And Melito the Philosopher said, “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.)

And the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John” says, “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...
“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.)

So there can be zero question that the early Christians often called Domitian a tyrant.

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 7.

Preterists also argue that a statement by Tertullian ties John into the persecutions under Nero, rather than Domitian. For they claim Tertullian has John persecuted at the same time as Paul. But that is not what Tertullian said. His words were,“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa.” (The Prescription Against Heretics,” by Tertullian, tran. by the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., chapter 36. 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.) Saying that Paul suffered the same persecution as John does not even so much as imply that these persecutions took place at the same time. This can be seen in the last sentence before the one about Paul and John. For it says that “Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s.” This author obviously knew that Peter was not persecuted at the same time as his Lord. So the claim that Tertullian tied John into the persecutions of Nero is only nonsense.

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research, part 8.

Finally, Preterists argue that in the two oldest Syriac versions of the New Testament, the title of the Revelation says, “written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.” This sounds significant, until we realize that the oldest of these two versions is the Philoxenian Version, which is thought to have been made by Polycarpus of Mabug in about 508 A.D., and the other one is the Harclean version, thought to have been made by Thomas of Harkel in about 616 A.D. That is, they date from around four and five centuries after the Revelation was written! None of the older Syriac versions even contained the Revelation at all.

In conclusion, during the second through the fifth centuries at least seven Christian writers clearly stated facts that date the Revelation to within the reign of Domitian, including details that demonstrate at least four independent sources of information. Two early writers said things that could be interpreted to mean it was written earlier, but that is not a necessary conclusion from any statement made by either of them. There are only two clearly stated comments about an earlier date. One of these was made by a writer noted for historical errors. And the other comes from an eighth or seventh century copy made by an ignorant and careless scribe “given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him.” So all solid and reliable evidence points to the Revelation having been given in the later years of Domitian.

At the time Jerusalem was destroyed, the emperor of Rome was Vespasian. About nine years later he was succeeded by his son Titus, the one who had previously conquered Jerusalem. Titus ruled from approximately A.D. 79 to 81, to be succeeded by Domitian about eleven years after Jerusalem was destroyed. Domitian ruled until approximately A.D. 96, some 26 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. “Toward the end of Domitian's reign,” as Irenaeus put it, would be a few years earlier. And that is why most scholars conclude that the Revelation was written sometime between A.D. 92 and 94, with most favoring the later date.

James C. Morris
December 1, 2013

 

[1stcenturylady]

The temple in Revelation refers to the Church.

There are many references to the "temple" in Revelation. What verse(s) are you speaking of?

 

[David Kent]

There are many references to the "temple" in Revelation. What verse(s) are you speaking of?

All of them except perhaps the temple in heaven.

 

[claninja]

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

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
-Clement of Alexandria never actually mentions Domitian by name. He only mentions a 'tyrant'

'And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit" (Clement of Alexandria - Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved, Chapter 42)'

-Clement of Alexandria also believed that the teachings of the apostles ended with Nero:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero" (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 7, Chapter 17).

-Clement of Alexandria also believed Nero's reign occurred during Daniels 70th week

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away ..." (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, Chapter 21). Later in this same chapter, Clement wrote, "... and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

-So based on his writings, the evidence leans toward the tyrant being Nero and not Domitian.

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.

This doesn't mention Domitian at all, as even you admit. 'as tradition teaches' doesn't necessarily point to domitian either, as clement appears to point towards nero: "the teachings of the apostles END with Nero."

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.

Correct, Tertullian does NOT mention John being banished by Domitian.
If we are going to make connections without specific evidence, then we can also conclude that John was boiled in oil and exiled around the same time Paul and Peter were killed:

How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! (prescription against heresies Chapter 36)

On and on it goes, no one is willing to depart from the tradition.
This seems to be the early church tradition.

If we've learned anything from the catholic church, Tradition does not equal fact,. One ambiguous quote does not equal fact. It must be tested against other sources.

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

The entire argument of a post 70ad revelation dating hangs on 1 quote from Irenaeus, an ambiguous quote that can be translated several different ways, as the "for that was seen" section is not specific for 'it' the vision, 'it' the book, or 'he' john himself.

The relevance is that Irenaeus believed Jesus lived to 40 or 50 years old. We know that is not correct, based on other sources. Unless you believe we should accept this as fact without testing it against other sources? Important claims, especially the dating of revelation, should be tested against all sources and not just 1.

Do you have any external evidence for an early date?

Papius (60-130ad): states John was killed near the time James the brother of Jesus was killed (62ad)

Clement of Alexandria (150-215ad): states the teachings of the apostles ended with Nero

Muratorian Fragment (170ad) "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. "

Epiphanus (314-403) states John was exiled during Claudius Caeser

Syriac version of revelation (600?) states John was exiled to patmos by Nero

 

[Ronald]

1st thank you for the response and providing evidence in a very well written way to support you view.
Let's look at each piece



1. Irenaeus
-Irenaeus admits that he was a boy when he learned from Polycarp he kept no written record:

"For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp ... For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse ... also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance ... I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind" (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, II)."

-Iranaeus has some other problems with his memory of learning things, for he also believed Jesus lived to be an old man:

"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)"

-According to pliny the elder, Nero was also referred to as Domitius Nero. Nero's actual name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So it is possible, considering his 'memory', that he misunderstood what he had learned as a boy.

2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
-Clement of Alexandria never actually mentions Domitian by name. He only mentions a 'tyrant'

'And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit" (Clement of Alexandria - Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved, Chapter 42)'

-Clement of Alexandria also believed that the teachings of the apostles ended with Nero:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero" (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 7, Chapter 17).

-Clement of Alexandria also believed Nero's reign occurred during Daniels 70th week

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away ..." (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, Chapter 21). Later in this same chapter, Clement wrote, "... and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

-so most likely the tyrant that Clement mentions is Nero

3. Eusebius
Eusebius gets his information from Irenaeus.

4. Origen
**Not familiar with the works of origen on the timing of Revelation

5. Papias (60-130 ad)
Papias wrote "Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord", of which only fragments remain. In one of the fragments, Papias mentions that John was killed around the same time as James the brother of Jesus. We know James was killed around 62 AD.

This statement conflicts with other early church fathers who stated john lived a long life after returning from patmos.

5. Epiphianus
States john was banished under Caesar Claudius.




Can you provide the excerpt where Polycarp states no church in Smyrna existed in 67AD? I cannot seem to find this.

Here is the quote I found:


But I have not found any such thing in you


[i.e., the church at Philippi], neither have heard thereof, among whom the blessed Paul

labored, who were his letters in the beginning. For he boasted of you in all those

churches which alone at that time knew God; for we knew him not as yet" [Polycarp,

Letter to the Philippians 11:3]. Polycarp (c. AD 69-155),

This does not explicitly state that there is no church in Smyrna before 70ad. All this could mean is that the smyrneans did not know God at the time Paul was boasting, which would have been around 53-58 AD



Just because Paul does not address the issues, as revelation does, doesn't mean those things weren't happening. Are all churches perfect? Definitely no.

Additionally:

Muratorian Canon (170 ad)
the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. "




Tertullian appears to state that Peter, Paul and John were all persecuted around the same time. This could suggest the same persecutor.

“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”



I agree. Also, Not only do many futurists believe it was written after 70ad, but also opponents of Christianity.

The First thing you chose to do is to discredit and disrespect Church Father's, saying Irenaeus' memory of things weren't accurate. Well, why was he even significant and a part of history at all if the guy was confused? "But lets' lift him up anyways and put him in history books, give him some credit ... although we doubt whatever he said was accurate!"
And then concerning Clement, here's the passage you quoted:
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero" (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 7, Chapter 17)."
What does it say? The Lords teaching (His ministry) ended in the middle of the times of Tiberius (who was a Roman emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD). That is a rough estimate that the Lord's ministry began and ended in the middle of that time.
Granted, we cannot be sure of writings, quotes even exact periods of time outside the Bible. We can't be certain nor can we rely on what Church fathers said concerning the antichrist, who he was or anything else for that matter - documents outside the Bible are not iron clad. We can rely on scripture, even though scripture does not state "thus says the Lord, in the year A.D. 95, a vision came to John while he was imprisoned on the Isle of Patmus."
If Revelation was written prior to 70 A.D., AND the purpose of that message was to warn Jerusalem of the coming Great Tribulation in Jerusalem and also included warning Christians of coming persecution in the Roman empire only, it would be a very short book and not be so great. Besides Jesus had already warned them of these things, why create an entire book filled unrelated things that men would have to wrongly assign symbolic meanings to all of it - which is what many do?
It would not effect the entire world of many nations ( which scriptures states will attack Jerusalem).
It would not include the entire world population, for which Judgment Day concerns.
It would not include a Second Coming, since Jesus did not literally and physically return to Jerusalem in 67-70A.D. and set up His Millennial Kingdom. There would be no mention of such a kingdom, why if it was just spiritual in nature? The Bible already mentions in many areas, the spiritual kingdom of heaven that we are in, no need for any more detail.
There would be no mention of Him banishing sin and evil on earth for a 1000 years;
There would be no mention of Him banishing Satan and His demonic horde and changing them up for 1000 years so that those who live on earth could live without temptation, sin and evil. We have not experienced such a period of time on earth.
As far as the seven seals, trumpets and bowls and all events within, they did not occur in 70 A.D.
There would be no purpose whatsoever for the entire book of Revelation, since Jesus had already prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed in Matt. 24 and that they would all be persecuted for His name sake. Persecution throughout the world and throughout history for His name's sake has been much greater at least in numbers than it was during that period of time. Millions are currently being persecuted today for His name's sake.
No, Jesus told us of the time of His return, which reflects most of what is in the book of Revelation. A time that would bring greater stress than that of any time in history. Stress that will effect the entire globe.
The message of Revelation to the seven churches is the only message that was relevant for that time. But that message was also a message for church types throughout the Church Age as well. We can see problems that they had in those churches in ours.

No, the message of Revelation, from chapters 6-22 pertains to the end times, the Second Coming of Jesus, the Millennial Kingdom and beyond, regardless of what date you would like to assign to it. Judgment Day concerns the entire population of the world, not the fall of Jerusalem or Nero's persecution of the saints. It will be "As in the days of Noah ...", extreme. As we read through the events, we see nothing pertaining to Jerusalem 70 A.D., rather we see 1/3 of the planet on fire, over half of the population killed, a worldwide earthquake that topples all buildings, fire and brimstone, 100 lb. hailstones, the sun scorching all remaining unbelievers and destroying them. What is most significant is that we see our RESURRECTION, OUR REDEMPTION. We see the dead in Christ along with us receive new eternal bodies and are given rewards. Finally we also see Death and Hades thrown into the Lake of Fire and destroyed. Absolutely none of these events occurred in 67-70 A.D.? We see a new heaven and new earth (the New Jerusalem, a city made out of gold, and precious stones with the Tree of Life bearing fruit).

 

[Ronald]

Revelation . 17:9 And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he coms, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast

You have a different interpretation of this scripture and when the book of Revelation was written. It is fine to doubt anything outside of the Bible concerning church fathers and whether they verified it's date or not - fair enough. But the fact that Paul's writings do not address problems in Ephesus, he doesn't mention Sardis, Nicolatans, Symrna, Pergamos, is evidence to support the 95 A.D. date of Revelation.
Paul died and was replaced by Timothy in Ephesus and then John most likely replaced Timothy. As I said in my last post, Revelation was written for a later time, even concerning the seven churches, it concerned a time specific to those churches decades after Paul was dead. And concerning chapters 6-22, nothing in those chapters concerning the fall of Jerusalem, it concerns the end times, the Second Coming, Judgment Day for the world, our resurrection, a Millennial Kingdom, then after that, a New Heaven and Earth throughout eternity.
Here is what I accept as an interpretation of Revelation 17 and Daniel's references as well. I understand there were kingdoms that the Beast manifest throughout history and the last Beast would be the one whom we are currently addressing.

Is Islam the Beast? – Heaven Net

All the following information came from this site, summarized and edited.


Seven empires
1. Egypt
2. Assyria
3. Babylon
4. Medo-Persia
5. Greece
6. Rome (includes Byzantine empire/ eastern Roman empire ruled from Constantinople)
7. Ottoman (ruled from 1453 to 1924) This empire suffered a deadly blow but is being revived )

*Constantinople is now Istanbul, Turkey
*In Rev. 2:12 Satan's throne is in Pergamum (present day Turkey)
*The Great Sea mentioned is the Mediterranean. All those empires shared the Mediterranean Sea.
*The 8th Empire is Islam. Since 2010, we have seen chaos and upheaval starting in Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Syria. The formation of ISIS spreading from Syria into Iraq. There are also 80 Islamic terrorist groups worldwide in over 80 countries and the Muslim population is spreading 5 x faster than the western nations, which means, cultures are slowly disappearing and will dominated by Muslims in decades (if God tarries that long - I don't believe He will).
*It is interesting that the number 666 written in Greek looks almost identical to the Arabic words, "In the name of Allah".
*Rev. 20:4 Beheading is the signature of Islamic terrorism.
In the Quran, Surah 47:4 "When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks ..."

"And He shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and the laws and they shall be given into his had until a time and times and a half of time." Dan. 7:25
*Islam wants to change Greenwich Mean Time to Mecca Time. In 2010, Saudi Arabia built a clock 6 times taller than Big Ben - symbolizing a greater importance of their time zone.
*It is no mystery that Islam wants to change the law to Sharia Law.
*According to Dan. 7:3-7 and Rev. 31:2, the Beast will rise from lands once ruled by Babylonian, Persia and Greek empires.
*The False Prophet - Mohammed was a self proclaimed prophet who did not perform one miracle nor did he ascend to heaven (those stories were fabricated 300 years later)
* In Isaiah 14, Lucifer = Heylal Ben Shahar which means Morning Star/ Crescent Moon
The Crescent Moon and star are the symbol of Islam. It's interesting how Satan managed to get his name on the top of every Mosque in the world!
* Islam reject Jesus as the Son of God. In their most famous Mosque, these words are engraved in stone: "Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of God" and "God has no son"
* "There is one god, Allah and his messenger, Mohammed." That's would be considered blaspheme.
*The Beast conceals his name behind a façade of Peace. "Islam is Peace." Is Jihad peace?
* Surah 9:5 " ... fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captives, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
The Quran contains over 100 verses that dictate war.
*All the false gods worshipped in these fallen empires used the Crescent moon and Star as symbols. If any city is to be likened to Babylon, it is Mecca. No other modern city trades the in ancient merchandise as described in Rev. 18:12, 13 as they still do in Mecca.
*So, the Antichrist will be political, military and religious leader. Islam cannot separate religion from government as the west does, therefore this little horn will be and enforce Sharia Law on everyone. The west would not do this if it were the EU, US or the G7.
*Islam has waged war against the US, the west and Israel. A revived Roman empire would not do this.
*Currently, an alliance seems to be happening between Turkey, Iran and Syria, also supported by Russia.
It is said that the Antichrist may come from Syria. Or maybe the Ayatollah, since they are #1 sponsor of terrorism and close to having nukes (they may already have them).
* Ten nations will be formed when the Antichrist appears. Their unity will be mixed like iron and clay, but make no mistake they will have a common purpose, to destroy the west, Christianity and Israel and anyone who does not bow down to Allah.

 

[David Kent]

There only four kingdoms mentioned in the OT prophecy, Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, Rome. The first three are named in the OT, the fourth in the new. They are shown in two visions in Daniel. Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 in them the fourth and last ends with the kingdom of God (2) and the saints taking the kingdom (7). The Roman Empire is in power till the Lord Returns.

 

[DaveDavids]

Revelation uses some rather common phrasing found in many pre-biblical priestly texts

In specific, it uses phrasing and mathematics common to Babylonian priestly cuneiform texts on the cycles of Venus and the moon ( Sin )

 

[David Kent]

Preterists and futurists make the same errors. They take Revelation literally, or nearly so.

They both believe it was written to the Jews and concerns only the Jews.

But. It was written to the church and concerns the church

They consider the temple to be the literal temple, preterists, the former temple and futurists some imaginary future temple. The early church writers knew that it referred to the church as Paul says

• 1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
• 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
• 2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

They also taught that references to Jews referred to Christians. Tertullian said the 144,000 were Christian martyrs, for instance.