Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Interplanner · Jun 7, 2014

BW,
to answer your great question above: because what had happened was so unthinkable. I find that the main audience of the Rev to be the person still in Judaism who thought everything was going toward a large nation-state with a messiah present. And of course, most of the Jewish believers were raised in it. Did God really mean to close accounts with Judaism so forcefully?

The Rev keeps offering the scene in heaven where things are as preached by the apostles in Acts 2, 3, Eph 1 (the ascension and enthronement of the Lamb who had visited earth), and says this "Jerusalem that is above" is hovering above earth, coming down, intimately connected to our efforts here (like Gal 4 calling it our mother).

All this is to help the person who was raised in Judaism to understand that "our citizenship ('politeuma') is in heaven" he said in the chapter that contrasts himself with Judaism (Phil 3), as much as 'sumpolitai' contrasts with it in Eph 2:19. That term, says N T Wright, helped the NT believer fortify his separation from both Roman and Judaistic "membership" at the same time. Neither system or institution was home for the NT believer.

We also know that Judaism did not give up after the devastation of 70 AD. As in, they didn't "get" it.

These are reasons for understanding the overthrow of the harlot as the end of that era, and replaced by the long kingdom of Christ in a happy marriage (Eph 5). This makes me curious about Paul's "father offering virgin" language in 2 Cor 10 and its timing. He is keeping the virgin clean of the stain of other gospels, but the point is the timing: the marriage hasn't happened yet, but she's betrothed, and its coming soon. I believe this to be associate with the wedding in the Rev and to take place shortly. Some say he is referring to it as past, and worried about the new wife. (All hazards mentioned there are Judaism; vs 5, 13, 22).

It is more important that we form a unity of these conceptions than have the right sequence of events from the Rev whether they are past or future.

ebedmelech · Jun 7, 2014

Biblewriter said:
The facts speak for themselves.

Why would God need to have specifically stated something that had happened more that twenty years earlier, and in such a public way that everyone already knew it had happened?

Indeed they do...which is why Gentry's work is in it's 3rd printing.

Biblewriter · Jun 7, 2014

Interplanner said:
BW,
to answer your great question above: because what had happened was so unthinkable. I find that the main audience of the Rev to be the person still in Judaism who thought everything was going toward a large nation-state with a messiah present. And of course, most of the Jewish believers were raised in it. Did God really mean to close accounts with Judaism so forcefully?

The Rev keeps offering the scene in heaven where things are as preached by the apostles in Acts 2, 3, Eph 1 (the ascension and enthronement of the Lamb who had visited earth), and says this "Jerusalem that is above" is hovering above earth, coming down, intimately connected to our efforts here (like Gal 4 calling it our mother).

All this is to help the person who was raised in Judaism to understand that "our citizenship ('politeuma') is in heaven" he said in the chapter that contrasts himself with Judaism (Phil 3), as much as 'sumpolitai' contrasts with it in Eph 2:19. That term, says N T Wright, helped the NT believer fortify his separation from both Roman and Judaistic "membership" at the same time. Neither system or institution was home for the NT believer.

We also know that Judaism did not give up after the devastation of 70 AD. As in, they didn't "get" it.

These are reasons for understanding the overthrow of the harlot as the end of that era, and replaced by the long kingdom of Christ in a happy marriage (Eph 5). This makes me curious about Paul's "father offering virgin" language in 2 Cor 10 and its timing. He is keeping the virgin clean of the stain of other gospels, but the point is the timing: the marriage hasn't happened yet, but she's betrothed, and its coming soon. I believe this to be associate with the wedding in the Rev and to take place shortly. Some say he is referring to it as past, and worried about the new wife. (All hazards mentioned there are Judaism; vs 5, 13, 22).

It is more important that we form a unity of these conceptions than have the right sequence of events from the Rev whether they are past or future.

The sequence of events cannot be found in the Revelation. Most of it is not even about Israel, as are the bulk of end time prophecies. Daniel and the Revelation take up the other nations as their subject. But they are mentioned in other prophecies as they relate to Israel, or to Judah, as the case might be.

Biblewriter · Jun 7, 2014

ebedmelech said:
Indeed they do...which is why Gentry's work is in it's 3rd printing.

The fact that his bad doctrine and poor reasoning is very popular does not make it either good doctrine or good reasoning. Nor does it change the fact that almost all historians who have no interest in the theological significance of their conclusions have concluded that the Revelation was given during the latter part of Domatian's reign.

ebedmelech · Jun 7, 2014

Biblewriter said:
The fact that his bad doctrine and poor reasoning is very popular does not make it either good doctrine or good reasoning. Nor does it change the fact that almost all historians who have no interest in the theological significance of their conclusions have concluded that the Revelation was given during the latter part of Domatian's reign.

That's what I say about your responses..."bad doctrine and poor literal reasoning".

John was in the tribulation, bannished to Patmos by Nero, and it was then, in about 66 AD, that Jesus gave him the vision we know as Revelation.

Just as when Jesus came and Israel didn't know the time of their visitation, you "dispensational types" will be in for a surprise. Jesus will return, but nothing like your eschatology teaches.

dfw69 · Jun 7, 2014

ebedmelech said:
That's what I say about your responses..."bad doctrine and poor literal reasoning".

John was in the tribulation, bannished to Patmos by Nero, and it was then, in about 66 AD, that Jesus gave him the vision we know as Revelation.

Just as when Jesus came and Israel didn't know the time of their visitation, you "dispensational types" will be in for a surprise. Jesus will return, but nothing like your eschatology teaches.

Then it won't be Jesus but an imposter

But how do you think he will return ?

ebedmelech · Jun 7, 2014

dfw69 said:
Then it won't be Jesus but an imposter

But how do you think he will return ?

Matthew 25

dfw69 · Jun 7, 2014

ebedmelech said:
Matthew 25

I'm sure your interpretation and my interpretation of Matt 25 is probably different so .. What do you mean? What's in Matt 25?

ebedmelech · Jun 7, 2014

dfw69 said:
I'm sure your interpretation and my interpretation of Matt 25 is probably different so .. What do you mean? What's in Matt 25?

Matthew 25 is final judgment...but it first give two parrables that tell us to be about the Lord's business. The parable of ten virgins and the parabke of the talents.

At Matthew 25:31-46 is the judgment at Christ second coming.

dfw69 · Jun 7, 2014

ebedmelech said:
Matthew 25 is final judgment...but it first give two parrables that tell us to be about the Lord's business. The parable of ten virgins and the parabke of the talents.

At Matthew 25:31-46 is the judgment at Christ second coming.

I see how you see things a bit better

I still hold to a physical resurrection of saint at Christ coming and we reign 1000 years and after the 1000 years the dead are raised and judge by god

Agree to disagree ... Peace

Bible2 · Jun 8, 2014

Interplanner said in post 381:

These are reasons for understanding the overthrow of the harlot as the end of that era . . .

Note that while the corrupt aspects of 1st century AD Jerusalem are included in what Revelation's symbolic harlot "Babylon" (Revelation chapters 17-18) represents, she represents much more than just the corrupt aspects of 1st century AD Jerusalem. For 1st century AD Jerusalem just by itself didn't reign over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18). Nor was 1st century AD Jerusalem the only place where people bought merchandise (Revelation 18:11). Nor had 1st century AD Jerusalem just by itself corrupted the entire world (Revelation 18:3). Nor had 1st century AD Jerusalem been continuously supported by the empires of fallen man throughout history (Revelation 17:9-10). Instead, Revelation's symbolic "Babylon" represents all of mankind's corrupt political (Revelation 17:18), economic (Revelation 18:11), and religious (Revelation 18:24) systems throughout the earth (Revelation 18:3), and throughout history (Revelation 17:9-10).

In Revelation 11:8, the great city is Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified. But in Revelation 21:10, the great city is New Jerusalem, which is now in heaven. And in Revelation 14:8, Revelation 17:18, and Revelation 18:10-21, the great city is the symbolic harlot/city of Babylon. When it's destroyed, it will be found no more at all (Revelation 18:21), forever (Revelation 19:3), unlike Jerusalem, which was found again after its only-temporary destruction in 70 AD.

The 10 kings of the Antichrist's empire will destroy with fire what Revelation's "Babylon" represents (Revelation 17:16-17) when they destroy the cities of the earth (Revelation 16:19), probably with nukes (and probably with Fission-Fusion-Fission, "FFF", or "666", nukes, "F" representing the number six in English gematria), at the time of the 7th vial (Revelation 16:17,19), which will be the final event (Revelation 16:17) of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:2 to 20:6, Matthew 24:29-31). They could do this under the direction of Lucifer/Satan (Isaiah 14:17,12), who could want to leave only a literal "scorched earth" for Jesus to return to.

Near the very end of the future tribulation, Lucifer (employing the ancient lies of Gnosticism) could say to the Antichrist and his 10 kings something like: "Our great battle against the evil, tyrant god YHWH is about to begin [Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19], a battle which we will win, and so we will be able to escape YHWH's prison house, this material universe, and return to the wholly-spiritual Pleroma [i.e. Heaven]. So let us now destroy this prison cell, this foul planet, and let us, as it were, burn up all the gewgaws which we have hung upon our cell walls. Let us burn up all our great cities, all our magnificent systems. Let us break all our chains of attachment to this vile physical realm, that we might more freely ascend back to our rightful place in the Pleroma [Isaiah 14:13-14]".

Of course this will be a lie. For at his 2nd coming, Jesus (who is YHWH: John 10:30, Zechariah 14:3-4) will completely defeat the world's armies, arrayed against YHWH (Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19-21). And Jesus will have Lucifer bound in the bottomless pit during the subsequent 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-6, Isaiah 14:15). And Jesus will restore ruined parts of the earth and make them like the Garden of Eden (Ezekiel 36:35, Isaiah 51:3). And after the 1,000 years and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15), God will create a new heaven (a new 1st heaven, a new sky/atmosphere for the earth) and a new earth (a new surface for the earth) (Revelation 21:1). And then God will descend from the 3rd heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem to live with saved humanity on the new earth (Revelation 21:2-4).

Interplanner said in post 381:

These are reasons for understanding the overthrow of the harlot as the end of that era . . .

Note that the era of the letter of the Jewish Old Covenant Mosaic law ended not at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, but decades earlier, at the moment that Jesus died on the Cross (Matthew 27:50-51a), and abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19), which was the same moment that he brought the New Covenant into effect (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 10:19-20, Matthew 27:51a). So there was no transition period, no overlap at all (Hebrews 10:9b, Hebrews 7:12), between the time of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and the time of the New Covenant.

Also, while the apostles asked Jesus about the end of the age (Matthew 24:3), he didn't tell them that the end of the age would occur at the destruction of the 2nd temple, or (as is sometimes claimed) before the future tribulation, or even at the end of the future tribulation, i.e. at his (post-tribulation) 2nd coming (Matthew 24:29-31), or when the end of the age would occur, just as Jesus didn't tell the apostles many other things during his ministry (John 16:12). It wouldn't be until much later that Jesus would show the apostle John, through the vision in the book of Revelation (given about 95 AD: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c), that the end of the age, when all the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire (Matthew 13:40, Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:15), won't occur until over 1,000 years after Jesus' (never fulfilled) 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:15).

Interplanner said in post 381:

It is more important that we form a unity of these conceptions than have the right sequence of events from the Rev whether they are past or future.

Regarding having the right sequence of events, Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are in sequence insofar as the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will begin with the events of the 2nd through 6th seals, occurring in the order shown in Revelation 6:3-14. After the events of the 6th seal, Revelation 7 will occur. Then the 7th seal will be unsealed and out of it will come the tribulation's 7 trumpets (Revelation 8:1-6). Then the events of the first 6 trumpets in Revelation 8:7 to Revelation 9:21 will occur in the order shown there. Then Revelation 10 will occur. Then the literal 3.5 years of the Antichrist's worldwide reign will occur, which time period is shown from 4 different angles in Revelation chapters 11 to 14 (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 14:9-13).

Then the 7th trumpet will sound, announcing the legal end of the Antichrist's reign (Revelation 11:15). Out of the 7th trumpet's heavenly-temple opening will come the 7 plagues of the 7 vials (Revelation 11:19, Revelation 15:5 to 16:1), the tribulation's final stage. Then the events of the 7 vials will occur in the order shown in Revelation 16. Jesus will return right after the 7th vial (Revelation 16:17,19, Revelation 19:2-21), and he will marry the church at that time (Revelation 19:7). Then he will defeat the world's armies (Revelation 19:11 to 20:3) and reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected or changed church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53). Then the events of Revelation 20:7 to Revelation 22:5 will occur in the order shown there.

Interplanner said in post 381:

It is more important that we form a unity of these conceptions than have the right sequence of events from the Rev whether they are past or future.

Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are future because they're about "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1b). And just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 has never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find its fulfillment, so the highly-detailed events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 have never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find their fulfillment.

Interplanner · Jun 8, 2014

BW, what does "most of those events are not about Israel" mean? Then there's the "as" of the next phrase. Are the bulk of other prophecies about other nations or about Israel?

I don't know how a person reads the Rev without at least seeing that the destruction of the harlot and the ensuing happy marriage of the Lamb and bride are climactic. Like the collapse of Sauron and then Aragorn and Arwen's wedding to LORD OF THE RINGS.

Eph 5 has the same preparation for marriage, but not quite married feel to it, as does 2 Cor 10. The preparation is tied into the one new 'people' of the Gospel (ch 2-3) in single terms (ex., love for his own body, we are members of his body), but also in the imagery of one flesh. The two become one. Paul uses it beyond any individual couple. That's an interesting way of unifying the same body the same way that chs 2-3 did. The one new people exist in Christ, or else not at all. It takes the water of the word (part of that is how Paul uses the OT themes, images, motifs) to 'wash' the body of the bride for Christ. Because otherwise it would be full of dissension and division and backbiting like the Galatian situation.

Those are the unifying themes I was referring to.

If you want to go out on limbs the apostle's didn't, it's your neck. I ask again, doesn't Eusebius quote itself say that all that is strange and mysterious and additional when he's referring to Papias? What's the strength of that limb?

Biblewriter · Jun 8, 2014

ebedmelech said:
I haven't discredited myself at all on this matter Biblewriter. What you presented is what you think discredits Gentry's work. However, that is not proof of anything. What you presented also has to be evaluated. This is a work that many others, superior to you would have refuted, but they could not.

Like I said Biblewriter, if you think so. Gentry's work stands in my book because as I said many, superior to you cannot and have not refuted it.

I ignored this as it passed, for the subject was your dismissing of my research as less thorough than Gentry's. This is pure assumption on your part. But that is beside the point.

Much more to the point is the total falsehood of your claim that Gentry's work has never been refuted.

It has indeed been refuted, on a Ph.D Dissertation, just as was the original version of Gentry's book.

You can read it here:
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf

Biblewriter · Jun 8, 2014

Biblewriter said:
The sequence of events cannot be found in the Revelation. Most of it is not even about Israel, as are the bulk of end time prophecies. Daniel and the Revelation take up the other nations as their subject. But they are mentioned in other prophecies as they relate to Israel, or to Judah, as the case might be.

Interplanner said:
BW, what does "most of those events are not about Israel" mean? Then there's the "as" of the next phrase. Are the bulk of other prophecies about other nations or about Israel?

I don't know how a person reads the Rev without at least seeing that the destruction of the harlot and the ensuing happy marriage of the Lamb and bride are climactic. Like the collapse of Sauron and then Aragorn and Arwen's wedding to LORD OF THE RINGS.

Eph 5 has the same preparation for marriage, but not quite married feel to it, as does 2 Cor 10. The preparation is tied into the one new 'people' of the Gospel (ch 2-3) in single terms (ex., love for his own body, we are members of his body), but also in the imagery of one flesh. The two become one. Paul uses it beyond any individual couple. That's an interesting way of unifying the same body the same way that chs 2-3 did. The one new people exist in Christ, or else not at all. It takes the water of the word (part of that is how Paul uses the OT themes, images, motifs) to 'wash' the body of the bride for Christ. Because otherwise it would be full of dissension and division and backbiting like the Galatian situation.

Those are the unifying themes I was referring to.

If you want to go out on limbs the apostle's didn't, it's your neck. I ask again, doesn't Eusebius quote itself say that all that is strange and mysterious and additional when he's referring to Papias? What's the strength of that limb?

What I meant was exactly what I said. Most of the events prophesied in Daniel and the Revelation are about gentile nations. But most of the events in most of the rest of Bible prophecy are about Israel of Judah, which in the Bible are not synonyms.

ebedmelech · Jun 8, 2014

Biblewriter said:
I ignored this as it passed, for the subject was your dismissing of my research as less thorough than Gentry's. This is pure assumption on your part. But that is beside the point.

Much more to the point is the total falsehood of your claim that Gentry's work has never been refuted.

It has indeed been refuted, on a Ph.D Dissertation, just as was the original version of Gentry's book.

You can read it here:
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf

I won't just respond Biblewriter...I'm going to examine this thoroughly. However, of particular note is this work is dated 2005. Gentry published "Before Jerusalem Fell" in 1989.

Lastly, it says it's "a response"...that doesn't *necessarily* means it refutes anything. It *could* also mean they defend the Domitianic date.

However, I'll examine it first. Still wondering why would John write Revelation, and not tell us the temple was destroyed.

UNTHINKABLE!!! Especially when John was right there when Jesus gave the prophecy...

Biblewriter · Jun 8, 2014

Biblewriter said:
I ignored this as it passed, for the subject was your dismissing of my research as less thorough than Gentry's. This is pure assumption on your part. But that is beside the point.

Much more to the point is the total falsehood of your claim that Gentry's work has never been refuted.

It has indeed been refuted, on a Ph.D Dissertation, just as was the original version of Gentry's book.

You can read it here:
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf

ebedmelech said:
I won't just respond Biblewriter...I'm going to examine this thoroughly. However, of particular note is this work is dated 2005. Gentry published "Before Jerusalem Fell" in 1989.

Lastly, it says it's "a response"...that doesn't *necessarily* means it refutes anything. It *could* also mean they defend the Domitianic date.

However, I'll examine it first. Still wondering why would John write Revelation, and not tell us the temple was destroyed.

UNTHINKABLE!!! Especially when John was right there when Jesus gave the prophecy...

Please do read it, and particularly notice the third sentence if the intriduction, which reads, "The dissertation interacts extensively with Kenneth Gentry's work Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, since this work s the primary defense of the Neronoc date."

He goes on to cite and then completely demolish Gentry's arguments, one at a time.

So this 253 page PhD dissertation was written specifically as a refutation of Gentry's work.

ebedmelech · Jun 9, 2014

Biblewriter said:
Please do read it, and particularly notice the third sentence if the intriduction, which reads, "The dissertation interacts extensively with Kenneth Gentry's work Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, since this work s the primary defense of the Neronoc date."

He goes on to cite and then completely demolish Gentry's arguments, one at a time.

So this 253 page PhD dissertation was written specifically as a refutation of Gentry's work.

I would say you think he "completly demolishes Gentry's work"...and why not Biblewriter? You're in his camp!

We'll see if he actually does. I knew Hitchock "rang a bell". I know exactly who he is...and he's a staunch dispensationalist. I've heard him a few times.

Biblewriter · Jun 10, 2014

ebedmelech said:
I would say you think he "completly demolishes Gentry's work"...and why not Biblewriter? You're in his camp!

We'll see if he actually does. I knew Hitchock "rang a bell". I know exactly who he is...and he's a staunch dispensationalist. I've heard him a few times.

You may have noticed that I am also a staunch dispensationalist. And as you have rejected out of hand all the proof I have offered, even though it is 100 percent documented, I assume you will also reject what Hitchcock said. But whether you reject it or not, Gentry's nonsense has indeed been refuted by two dispensational writers, myself and Hitchcock, whether you admit it or not.

ebedmelech · Jun 10, 2014

Biblewriter said:
You may have noticed that I am also a staunch dispensationalist. And as you have rejected out of hand all the proof I have offered, even though it is 100 percent documented, I assume you will also reject what Hitchcock said. But whether you reject it or not, Gentry's nonsense has indeed been refuted by two dispensational writers, myself and Hitchcock, whether you admit it or not.

I will read Hitchcok's work...however it still means not seeing the forrest for the trees Biblewriter. You "dispy" guys always skate around the biggest problem. When you couldn't get Daniel 9 right...you stuck a gap in there...it's still there. Now...you have to hold to Domitian's reign to hold your eschatology together.

Why, if John wrote Revelation in 95 AD does he make NO remark of the temple being destroyed and Israel exiled. You love to major on the minors on this point...but the fact is Jerusalem and the temple IS THE identity of Israel.

John was there when the Olivet Discourse was given,,,and surely he would mention it's fulfillment.

Gentry doesn't deliver nonsense...he delivers facts that definitely makes the case for a date around 66 AD.

Biblewriter · Jun 11, 2014

ebedmelech said:
I will read Hitchcok's work...however it still means not seeing the forrest for the trees Biblewriter. You "dispy" guys always skate around the biggest problem. When you couldn't get Daniel 9 right...you stuck a gap in there...it's still there. Now...you have to hold to Domitian's reign to hold your eschatology together.

Why, if John wrote Revelation in 95 AD does he make NO remark of the temple being destroyed and Israel exiled. You love to major on the minors on this point...but the fact is Jerusalem and the temple IS THE identity of Israel.

John was there when the Olivet Discourse was given,,,and surely he would mention it's fulfillment.

Gentry doesn't deliver nonsense...he delivers facts that definitely makes the case for a date around 66 AD.

The "gap" in Daniel 9 is not something that ws "invented" by didpensationalists. It was taught in the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day, whish was the last twekve chapters of "against Heresies," by Irenaeus, dated circa 186-188. It was also very clearly specified in the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture which has survived top the present day, which was a commentary on Daniel by Hyppolutus, dated circa 202-211.

But more to the point, it is contained in the text itself, which is why the early church taught it.

As to the date of Revelation, you are completely off base when you claim that we "have to hold to Domatian's reign to hold" our "eschatology together." To Futurism, the date of the Revelation is entirely immaterial. It could have been written at any time from shortly after the Lord Jesus returned to heaven to the day before John died, and it would make absolutely zero difference. But for Preterism to even survive, it is absolutely necessary to pretend that it was written before Jerusalem was destroyed. That is why Preterists so desperately cling to the pretension that it was written at that time.

Gentry's arguments are specious. He argues about what some ancients "must have meant" when they say some things, and dismisses what other ancients explicitly said.

It is pure fantasy to claim that the statement by Irenaeus was "ambiguous." And this argument flatly contradicts his other argument that all the other ancient writers who said the same thing were depending on Irenaeus. If every naturally Greek speaking writer who read what Irenaeus said understood him the same way, how does Gentry come off pretending that he understands Irenaeus better than all the people that actually spoke his language?

And it was outright false for Gentry to have claimed that all the other ancients who agreed with Irenaeus were only depending on what he said. For, right in this thread, I have presented absolute proof that at least three other writers presented details about that than not even one other included. This is conclusive prof of an absolute minimum of four independent ancient sources of the information.

You can mock my scholarship, but you cannot get around the quotations I have presented, with absolute documentation as to who said it, and where he said it.

The claim that what Irenaeus said was ambiguous is nonsense, and the claim that all other ancient writers who said the same thing were only depending on him is a lie.

This is why almost all historians other than committed Preterists date the Revelation to the reign of Domatian.

Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Senior Member

Senior Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Pre-Tribulation Pre- False Messianic Age

My dog Micah in the pic

Pre-Tribulation Pre- False Messianic Age

My dog Micah in the pic

Pre-Tribulation Pre- False Messianic Age

Bible2

Guest

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Senior Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Senior Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency