Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Bible2 · Jan 18, 2014

shturt678s said in post 340:

Yet the difference is marked, for in v.28 Jesus cannot add, "and now is."

In John 5:25, "and now is" referred to the time of Jesus' first coming, when he on the Cross "cried with a loud voice" and some dead people heard it and came back to life (Matthew 27:50,52). And in John 5:25, "the hour is coming" refers to the still-future time of the first resurrection, the physical resurrection of the church at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Romans 8:23-25).

--

Regarding Revelation 20:4, every time the word "souls" is used in the Bible it doesn't have to refer to dead people (Acts 27:37).

shturt678s · Jan 18, 2014

Bible2 said:
In John 5:25, "and now is" referred to the time of Jesus' first coming, when he on the Cross "cried with a loud voice" and some dead people heard it and came back to life (Matthew 27:50,52). And in John 5:25, "the hour is coming" refers to the still-future time of the first resurrection, the physical resurrection of the church at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Romans 8:23-25).

Jn.5:25, "....The hour is coming and is now when the dead shall hear..." , ie, let's context this one out. Back in v.21 everything is compressed into the brief term that the Son "quickens." In v.24 this is expanded by adding the fact that life is received by means of "my Word" heard and believed. Now our v.25:

In v.25 this is expanded still farther by stating that the hour for this coming to spiritual life "is now" already. That is why the words, "The hour is coming and now is," are emphatically placed forward, ie, the ol' hyperbaton the ol' English misses of course which you understand; compare for the same expression and in the same sense Jn.4:23.

The time referred to is that of the N.T. era (wra in the wide sense), which, as Jesus speaks, still "is coming," since the work of redemption is not yet complete and which yet "now is," since Jesus is here and his saving Word at this moment rings in men's ears.

***It is thus impossible to refer these words to the last day and to interpret them with reference to the resurrection at that day. The Jews to whom Jesus is speaking need not wait till a later time, the hour to escape from death is now right here.

Regarding Revelation 20:4, every time the word "souls" is used in the Bible it doesn't have to refer to dead people (Acts 27:37).

"Souls" contains many shades, ie, context rules of course, eg. IThess.5:23.

Old Jack

Bible2 · Jan 18, 2014

shturt678s said in post 342:

The Jews to whom Jesus is speaking need not wait till a later time, the hour to escape from death is now right here.

While there is the figurative resurrection of initial salvation (Ephesians 2:5-6), the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 will be literal in the sense of bodily (cf. Romans 8:23). For Revelation 20:5 says "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", meaning that the first resurrection will be the same, bodily type of resurrection as will occur sometime after the 1,000 years (Revelation 20:7-15). For not every dead person is going to be figuratively resurrected in the sense of becoming saved (Revelation 20:15), and Revelation 20:5 means that the rest of the dead (i.e. all the non-church dead of all times) will be resurrected in the same manner that the church will be resurrected in Revelation 20:4-6, but the rest of the dead won't be resurrected until sometime after the 1,000 years are over.

Also, the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 will be literal/bodily because it won't occur until Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), and the resurrection of the church that will occur at Jesus' 2nd coming will be a literal/bodily resurrection, just like Jesus' literal/bodily resurrection at his first coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,52-58; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, Romans 8:23-25, Philippians 3:20-21, Luke 24:39).

Interplanner · Jan 19, 2014

Unless...Rev 20 is a "picture" of what had happened in Christ's victory. Hmmm.

shturt678s · Jan 19, 2014

Interplanner said:
Unless...Rev 20 is a "picture" of what had happened in Christ's victory. Hmmm.

The effect or result of Christ's enthronement and exaltation, ie, what a friend we have in Jesus!

Michael the arch angel beat up Satan with one hand tied behind his back, ie, I'm glad we're on his side, or more importantly on Jesus' side.

Old Jack, taking sides

btw like those pictures

shturt678s · Jan 19, 2014

Bible2 said:
While there is the figurative resurrection of initial salvation (Ephesians 2:5-6),

Eph.2:5, "he quickened" places one in the Kingdom of God then after one passes, then the figurative first part of "1" resurrection occurs, ie, one soul enters heaven or hell until the second half of "1" resurrection at the end (Parousia), ie, forensically and secretly judged already upon one's passing sitting on the left of the right side at the public Great White Throne Judgment Seat.

the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 will be literal in the sense of bodily (cf. Romans 8:23). For Revelation 20:5 says "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", meaning that the first resurrection will be the same, bodily type of resurrection as will occur sometime after the 1,000 years (Revelation 20:7-15).

Rev.20:5, "But the rest of the dead lived not again" are all those who died in unbelief, John reports the opposite: "they did not live," ie, the life everlasting.

For not every dead person is going to be figuratively resurrected in the sense of becoming saved (Revelation 20:15), and Revelation 20:5 means that the rest of the dead (i.e. all the non-church dead of all times) will be resurrected in the same manner that the church will be resurrected in Revelation 20:4-6, but the rest of the dead won't be resurrected until sometime after the 1,000 years are over.

Also, the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 will be literal/bodily because it won't occur until Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), and the resurrection of the church that will occur at Jesus' 2nd coming will be a literal/bodily resurrection, just like Jesus' literal/bodily resurrection at his first coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,52-58; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, Romans 8:23-25, Philippians 3:20-21, Luke 24:39).

Old Jack,

Appreciate you caring, ie, thank you again

Biblewriter · Jan 20, 2014

In all the "replies" so far, absolutely no one has even addressed the OP. The fact that, without even one exception, every historical source that can be proved to be from earlier than the sixth century, that is considered reliable, and that made an unequivocal statement about the time, placed the giving of the Revelation sometime after the year 90.

ebedmelech · Jan 20, 2014

Biblewriter said:
In all the "replies" so far, absolutely no one has even addressed the OP. The fact that, without even one exception, every historical source that can be proved to be from earlier than the sixth century, that is considered reliable, and that made an unequivocal statement about the time, placed the giving of the Revelation sometime after the year 90.

One thing is for sure..."eschatological" time will tell...and I'm confident it will show your "eschatological" timing was way off!

Interplanner · Jan 20, 2014

BW what do you think or what have you found in patristics about John writing reflectively about the events of 66+ but writing them in the mid 90s? Is that an approach anyone supports or has found?

Biblewriter · Jan 20, 2014

Interplanner said:
BW what do you think or what have you found in patristics about John writing reflectively about the events of 66+ but writing them in the mid 90s? Is that an approach anyone supports or has found?

Such an idea was not contained in even one of them.

Interplanner · Jan 20, 2014

I'll look into it. I can't take your word for it. Do you know of a quote about this?

Biblewriter · Jan 20, 2014

Interplanner said:
I'll look into it. I can't take your word for it. Do you know of a quote about this?

If you bothered to even read the OP you are so energetically opposing, you would know that I gave precise refrences for every one of them. look them up yourself, and see what they actually said.

riverrat · Jan 20, 2014

Biblewriter said:
If you bothered to even read the OP you are so energetically opposing, you would know that I gave precise refrences for every one of them. look them up yourself, and see what they actually said.

I would wager that interplanner would take ebedmelech's word for it.

Interplanner · Jan 21, 2014

I've already heard it proposed, year ago (that Rev was written the 90s but reflectively about the 60s); I don't remember the scholar's name.

Biblewriter · Jan 21, 2014

Interplanner said:
I've already heard it proposed, year ago (that Rev was written the 90s but reflectively about the 60s); I don't remember the scholar's name.

Not by anyone who wrote in ancient times.

Biblewriter · Jan 29, 2014

After all the endless postiing, I am still waiting for even one person to even attempt to address the OP.

How do you explain the fact that, without even one exception, every historical witness that can be proved to date from before the sixth century, that is considered reliable, and that made an unequivocal statement about the timing, put the giving of the Revelation sometime during the reign of Domitian, at least 20 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. And the fact that these witnesses included details that conclusively proved an absolute minimum of four independent more ancient sources of information.

Notrash · Jan 29, 2014

Biblewriter said:
After all the endless postiing, I am still waiting for even one person to even attempt to address the OP.

How do you explain the fact that, without even one exception, every historical witness that can be proved to date from before the sixth century, that is considered reliable, and that made an unequivocal statement about the timing, put the giving of the Revelation sometime during the reign of Domitian, at least 20 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. And the fact that these witnesses included details that conclusively proved an absolute minimum of four independent more ancient sources of information.

This pointt has been addressed in other threads beforw. You ignire the info and answers as you did the responses in this thread concerning the topic of Ireneous's statements and thus his meaning.

Additiinally, you ignored victorinus's statements cinceening the topic andscope of the lettee.

The main source for a late date is Ireneouses misunderstoid statements. Victorinus wrote that the letter of Rev applied to the end of jerusalem but that
a second fulfullment would apply to the fall of rome. Its quite possible that this was a common unstated opiniin (though found wrong in its extended applicatiin to rome) of many of the ecfs.

Hiw do YOU justify a still yet future application that is based on some of the ecfs writings about the fall of rome/end of the world if the fall of rome didn't occur in the manner in which they wrote and as they associated with the literal/futurist reading of pauls letters and of the letter of revelation? If they were wrong then in the literal, futurist application beyond the original addressees, they are still wrong.

Biblewriter · Jan 29, 2014

Notrash said:
This pointt has been addressed in other threads beforw. You ignire the info and answers as you did the responses in this thread concerning the topic of Ureneous's statements and thus his meaning.

Additiinally, you ignored victorinus's statements cinceening the topic andscope of the lettee.

The main source for a late date is Ireneouses misunderstoid sratements. Victorinus wrote tgat the letter of Rev applied to the end of jerysalem but that
a second fulfullment would apply to the fall of rome. Its quite possivle that this was a common unstated opiniin (though found wrong in its extended applicatiin to rome) of many of the ecfs.

Hiw do YOU justify a still yet future application that is based on some of the ecfs writings about tge fall of rome/end if the world if the fall of rome didn't occur in the ma.ner in which they wrote and as they associated with the literal/futurist reading if pauls letters and of the letter of revelation? If tgey were wrong then, they are still wring.

I thank you, for you are the very first of all those who posted here to even attempt to answer the OP.

I Have never heard of an ancient writer named Ureneous, and I found no statement about the date of the writing in the works of Victorinus. If there is one, give me the reference and I will examine it.

As to the claim that "The main source for a late date is Ireneouses misunderstoid sratements." I presented clear and convincing proof that no less than four ancient writers stated details that were not included in the writings of any of the others. This is conclusive proof af an absolute minimum of four ancient sources of information, not just Irenaeus, as Preterists falsely claim.

I also presented an analysis of the main statement of Irenaeus that demonstrate the irrationality of the claim that Irenaeus was speaking of the last time John was seen, rather than when John had seen "the Apocalyptic vision." To this I attached proof that various claims made to bolster this idea were incorrect.

So please read the OP before you answer it so hastily.

Notrash · Jan 29, 2014

Biblewriter said:
I thank you, for you are the very first of all those who posted here to even attempt to answer the OP.

I Have never heard of an ancient writer named Ureneous, and I found no statement about the date of the writing in the works of Victorinus. If there is one, give me the reference and I will examine it.

As to the claim that "The main source for a late date is Ireneouses misunderstoid sratements." I presented clear and convincing proof that no less than four ancient writers stated details that were not included in the writings of any of the others. This is conclusive proof af an absolute minimum of four ancient sources of information, not just Irenaeus, as Preterists falsely claim.

I also presented an analysis of the main statement of Irenaeus that demonstrate the irrationality of the claim that Irenaeus was speaking of the last time John was seen, rather than when John had seen "the Apocalyptic vision." To this I attached proof that various claims made to bolster this idea were incorrect.

So please read the OP before you answer it so hastily.

Your analysis of Irenaus and responses fall flat.
Victorinus's quote was offered and sourced for you before and the subject of Irenaus'quite was not disproven.. The sentence following the often referred to quote supports that he is talking about John, not the vision.
Please address the issue preaented. Why should we believe the ecfs futurist/literal perspectives if they were faulty then?

The quote from victorinus can be found at preterist archive. Before, you responded with other quotes of his which were futuruat to him and pertained to the fall of rime/end of the world

Its the faulty liteeal hermeneutic which is theur fault andmmost futurisrs.

Biblewriter · Jan 30, 2014

Notrash said:
Your analysis of Irenaus and responses fall flat.
Victorinus's quote was offered and sourced for you before and the subject of Irenaus'quite was not disproven.. The sentence following the often referred to quote supports that he is talking about John, not the vision.
Please address the issue preaented. Why should we believe the ecfs futurist/literal perspectives if they were faulty then?

The quote from victorinus can be found at preterist archive. Before, you responded with other quotes of his which were futuruat to him and pertained to the fall of rime/end of the world

Its the faulty liteeal hermeneutic which is theur fault andmmost futurisrs.

You claim that my argument about the statement of Irenaeus falls flat. And I say exactly the same thing about your argument.

But if Irenaeus did not mean the vision, why did so many other ancient writers who had accurate copies of his words and were well acquainted with both the language and his writing think that was what Irenaeus was saying?

And even if you were right about what Irenaeus actually meant, that does not dispose of the other three ancient witnesses that gave details that Irenaeus did not give. The additional details they gave are conclusive proof that their conclusions were based on sources other than the statement by Irenaeus.

As to Victorinus, I have zero memory of your having made such an allegation in the past. But as I am old, my memory is not perfect. At any rate I downloaded the entire translation of his commentary on the Revelation, as presented in the Preterist archive, and did a computer search for the word "Jerusalem." This search did not show the alleged statement.

But at least you are on subject. And I thank you for that.

Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Bible2

Guest

Regular Member

Bible2

Guest

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency