Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Biblewriter]

Actually amillennialists don't "sit the fence"...they just don't "buy the farm" of "full preterism". Jesus has not returned to judge the world in righteousness. That's where they depart from full preterism...and rightfully so.

Sister, just as there are variations of dispensational eschatology, there are variations of amillennialism.

This is where we acknowledge differences and yet maintain the unity of the faith.

Even in disagreement with dispensationalism, I attend a church that is SBC, because fellowship is centered around our Lord and what He accomplished for us. We don;t have to agree in all things, but we should LOVE in all things.

Salvation is one thing...eschatology is another.

Amen as well. I do not know even one dispensationalist who would make acceptance of this doctrine a condition of fellowship.

 

[Interplanner]

BW, you might want to read some of the posts here before you say that. Some of us are called satanists or other unpleasant things.

 

[Biblewriter]

BW, you might want to read some of the posts here before you say that. Some of us are called satanists or other unpleasant things.

I do not know the ones who post such nonsense. And if they are indeed actually dispensationalists, they are very ignorant ones. Just as ignorant as the ones who call me Antichrist and a denier of basic Christian doctrine because I am a dispensationalist.

 

[Interplanner]

It simmers beneath the surface however at least one look at titles here will show it, even on page 1.

 

[Interplanner]

OT just offered up a duzy on one of his.

 

[Biblewriter]

Like so many others, this discussion has wondered far from its subject, which is the dating of the Revelation.

 

[Rev20]

Like so many others, this discussion has wondered far from its subject, which is the dating of the Revelation.

I am fairly new to the forum, and have not had the opportunity to read the entire thread; but a very good book on the dating of the Revelation is,

"The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded", by James Glasgow, 1872.

He has a most interesting discourse on Irenaeus beginning on page 42. For example:

"In the Apocalypse itself [the word Origen uses] does not mean the vision, but rather the act or fact of showing it. It occurs ten times in reference to persons, especially Christ, and eight times in reference to mystery, knowledge, etc. . . . the verb which Irenaeus employs, occurs in the New Testament fifty-eight times, but not once in the sense of seeing."

 

[Biblewriter]

I am fairly new to the forum, and have not had the opportunity to read the entire thread; but a very good book on the dating of the Revelation is,

"The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded", by James Glasgow, 1872.

He has a most interesting discourse on Irenaeus beginning on page 42. For example:

"In the Apocalypse itself [the word Origen uses] does not mean the vision, but rather the act or fact of showing it. It occurs ten times in reference to persons, especially Christ, and eight times in reference to mystery, knowledge, etc. . . . the verb which Irenaeus employs, occurs in the New Testament fifty-eight times, but not once in the sense of seeing."

You do not need to read the entire thread. But you do need to read the multi-part Opening Post. It traces through seven ancient writers that clearly dated it to Domatians reign. And it points out the details in their comments that conclusively prove that these seven ancient writers form an absolute minimum of four completely independent ancient sources of information.

 

[Interplanner]

Just keep in mind that even so, it does not mean that the material is about our future, but is a way of seeing what happened in the DofJ and what history means going forward. The approach that we are getting advance information about our future is a huge mistake.

 

[Rev20]

You do not need to read the entire thread. But you do need to read the multi-part Opening Post. It traces through seven ancient writers that clearly dated it to Domatians reign. And it points out the details in their comments that conclusively prove that these seven ancient writers form an absolute minimum of four completely independent ancient sources of information.

Thanks. I particularly liked this part:

"Futurists really could care less when the Revelation was written, for to them that date is completely irrelevant."​

I don't know anyone who believes that, but you. One would have to be holed up in a monastery to not know that nearly all futurists demand that the unclear statements by Irenaeus and Polycarp are absolute proofs of a late date. The reason they are so demanding, as the rest of us know, is the futurist house of cards crumbles if an earlier Nero or Claudius date is proven.

But, don't worry. Unless some previously unknown manuscript is found in a dry cave somewhere, there will be no proof, one way or the other. You also wrote:

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.

Irenaeus seemed to contradict your interpretation in a paragraph within the same "manuscript", two paragraphs earlier. These are paragraphs 1 and 3:

"1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; . . . " [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.1, Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol I, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, p.1374 ]​

3. ". . . 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." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.3, Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol I, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, p.1376]​

I realize that is old hat, but do you see the problem? Irenaeus is saying, according to your interpretation, that ancient copies exist of the manuscript of a vision that was seen "almost in his day?" Scholars do not write like that. The only conclusion can be that no interpretation of verse 3, one way or the other, has merit until we can find a manuscript or additional explanatory resource.

You do however present the time-honored argument for a late date that, since many early church fathers jumped on the Irenaeus bandwagon, their interpretations must be considered accurate, as follows:

"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."

You may be unaware of this, but your definition of "unprejudiced historians" appears to be anyone who has a futurist agenda. I must remind everyone that consensus is neither science nor history, but opinion. The "majority" is routinely wrong.

For that reason, I highly recommend you read history and commentaries from those of a non-futurist persuasion. A very good (but tough) read is this by James Glasgow (free for downloading):

"The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded", by James Glasgow, 1872.​

Glasgow uses a lot of the original Greek in his arguments, so keep a couple of lexicons handy. Some good online ones are:

Lexicons for NASB and KJV​

Interlinear​

Biblewriter, you imply you are unbiased, partly because of this:

"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."

This is one of your unbiased sources, Victorinus, in his "Commentary on the Apocalypse", written about a century after Irenaeus wrote his:

"11. “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." [Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, Ch.10.11, Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol VII, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, p.805 ]​

Take a really good look at that statement by Victorinus. There is a lot of conjecture, which you seem to claim is further proof that Victorinus had another source besides Irenaeus. If so, what was his source(s)? And what did he mean by John "saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old. . ."

Does this mean that John saw the apocalypse, and then grew old? John would have already been 80 years old, or more, if he had been imprisoned during the early part of Domitian's reign (Sept 81 to Sept 96), and almost a centenarian if the futurist late date claims of about 95 AD were accurate.

There is more:

"And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God?"​

So, John saw the vision, and then waited many years to deliver the book to those in peril? Where is the sense of urgency present throughout the Revelation?

Sorry, Biblewriter, but I have no alternative but to believe that Victorinus embellished his commentary, until I see proof of his other source(s), or see a rational explanation of why he worded his statement as he did.

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.) This is thought to have been written sometime during the second century.

Thanks for the reference. I had not read that one before, and it is quite interesting. I did a double-take on the following passage, which showed events that occurred prior to Domitian meeting John:

"And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name, who spread a report about the seat of empire of the Romans, saying that it would quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over to another."​

I recalled reading that before, so I researched and found this by Dr. Ken Gentry:

" … the rationale for the exile is suggestive of a prior publication of Revelation. And it could be that John was banished twice, once under Nero and later under Domitian (which would explain the two traditions of a Neronic and Domitianic exile)." [Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.; Before Jerusalem Fell; Dominion Press, Fort Worth, TX; 1989; p.100]​

I agree with Gentry on this one. The highlighted statement about a "report" which implied John had already written the Revelation prior to meeting with Domitian, could only mean that John had been exiled to Patmos prior to Domitian's reign. Again, thanks for the reference.

This is getting rather long. I will examine the other two at a later time, after hearing some feedback.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thanks. I particularly liked this part:

"Futurists really could care less when the Revelation was written, for to them that date is completely irrelevant."​

I don't know anyone who believes that, but you. One would have to be holed up in a monastery to not know that nearly all futurists demand that the unclear statements by Irenaeus and Polycarp are absolute proofs of a late date. The reason they are so demanding, as the rest of us know, is the futurist house of cards crumbles if an earlier Nero or Claudius date is proven.

First, I thank you for posting on subject, rather than bringing in irrevelant subjects, as so many love to do.

This is the entirety of your post that I will answer here, for it is the most demonstrably false.

Fuuturism most certainly does not depend on a Dominican date.
Why do we not care when it was written? Because its meaning would be exactly the same whether it was written before or after Jerusalem was destroyed. A few years plus or minus in the dating of a prophecy that spoke of a time in the far distant future would be wholly insignificant.

I did not even enter the debate about the timing of the Revelation until many years after my 300 page award willing book was basically finished. In fact, I was hardly aware of any debate on the subject.

But this is not true of Preterism. Preterism wholly crumbles if the Revelation was given after Jerusalem was destroyed. So in your statement above, you have totally reversed the actual facts of the case.

As to the rest, I cited three different ancient authorities that gave details that were not given by Irenaeus. This is conclusive proof that they were not simply depending on his word. But each of these also included details that none of the others included. Thus, it has been conclusively proved that we have an absolute minimum of four independent sources (Irenaeus plus three others) that all agree. This makes the dating of the Revelation to the time of Domatian one of the most thoroughly established facts of ancient history. For we have very few ancient historical facts that are corroborated by as many as four independent sources.

This is why Preterists are forced to resort to such ridiculous dodges as claiming that some of them simply quoted Irenaeus and embellished the story, or Imagining a ridiculous notion,wholly unreported in any ancient document, that John was banished twice to the same island.

The fact that Preterism absolutely depends on a Neronic date for the Revelation is the reason that Preterists are willing to resort such desperate attempts in order to shore up this untenable position.

 

[Rev20]

First, I thank you for posting on subject, rather than bringing in irrevelant subjects, as so many love to do.

This is the entirety of your post that I will answer here, for it is the most demonstrably false.

Now, all you need to do is prove what I wrote is false. After all, your OP is loaded with conjecture.

Fuuturism most certainly does not depend on a Dominican date.

Why do we not care when it was written? Because its meaning would be exactly the same whether it was written before or after Jerusalem was destroyed. A few years plus or minus in the dating of a prophecy that spoke of a time in the far distant future would be wholly insignificant.

Futurism would "die" if the so-called "Antichrist" (the Beast of the Revelation) was, in fact, the 6th in the line of Roman Caesars (Rev 17:10): a brutal tyrant named Nero: the one who persecuted the saints for 42 months (Rev 13:5, 7): the one who actually ruled over the entire world in those days, which was the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1, Rev 13:5).

Not once in the new testament (new covenant) is the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned as a past fact; unless Babylon the Great of the Revelation is Jerusalem, which many highly-recognized biblical scholars believe, and who have both scripture and history to back them up. Even remarkable "literal" events, such as hails stones weighing a talent (Rev 16:21) (which is a hundred pounds), have a simple fulfillment in first century siege of Jerusalem:

"The [catapult] engines, that all the [Roman] legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs [1/4 mile] and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space." [Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, V.6.3]​

Sit back and think about that bit of history! And think about this: the most significant event in the history of the Bible--old and new covenants; an event that destroyed about 4 million lives, made the former holy land a desolate waste land, and forever eliminated the role of Judaism, the land of Israel, and the old covenant in the lives of God's chosen people, is not mentioned once as a past fact?

Well, it is, in fact, mentioned, but in typical prophetic language. Jerusalem is all but mentioned by name in Rev 11:8 as the great city; and Jesus made it abundantly clear that Jerusalem was Babylon the Great when he said the blood of all the prophets would be on the head of both Jerusalem (Matt 23:35-38; Lk 11:49-51) and Babylon the Great (Rev 18:24). It is simply illogical to believe they are not the same city.

I did not even enter the debate about the timing of the Revelation until many years after my 300 page award willing book was basically finished. In fact, I was hardly aware of any debate on the subject.

Debates on the dating of the Revelation have been abundant and continuous for a long time, maybe since the Reformation. I am astonished you were "hardly aware" of them.

But this is not true of Preterism. Preterism wholly crumbles if the Revelation was given after Jerusalem was destroyed. So in your statement above, you have totally reversed the actual facts of the case.

I am really not a preterist, so I don't care one way or the other. As for future events, I am as much in the dark as everyone else. But I can promise everyone this about the future: every work will be brought into judgement, including every idle word.

As to the rest, I cited three different ancient authorities that gave details that were not given by Irenaeus. This is conclusive proof that they were not simply depending on his word. But each of these also included details that none of the others included. Thus, it has been conclusively proved that we have an absolute minimum of four independent sources (Irenaeus plus three others) that all agree.

The problem is, they either have no supporting references, or they don't agree with each other. In the case of Irenaeus, he doesn't even agree with himself. LOL!

This is Victorinus:

"11. "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 Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should 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." [Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol XVIII. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870, p.417-418]​

Everyone take a good look at what Victorinus wrote, a century after Irenaeus, and two centuries after the real apocalypse: the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. First, Victorinus provided no reference whatsoever. Second he claims that John wrote the Apocalypse and "sat on it" until after he was released, which Victorinus claims is a long period of time later. Only then did John "deliver it." None of that makes any sense, considering the urgency of the matter (the "time is at hand"); that is unless Victorinus was simply embellishing what he had previously read from Irenaeus.

I was puzzled why you used the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John", when it does not support your conclusion. Read it again:

"And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name, who spread a report about the seat of empire of the Romans, saying that it would quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over to another. And Domitian, troubled by what was said, sent a centurion with soldiers to seize John, and bring him." [Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1916, p.560]​

In what book can we find John referring to the "seat of the Roman empire", other than the Revelation?

This makes the dating of the Revelation to the time of Domatian one of the most thoroughly established facts of ancient history. For we have very few ancient historical facts that are corroborated by as many as four independent sources.

There is nothing established about it, except in the minds of futurists. There are many brilliant scholars who dispute the late date theory.

This is why Preterists are forced to resort to such ridiculous dodges as claiming that some of them simply quoted Irenaeus and embellished the story, or Imagining a ridiculous notion, wholly unreported in any ancient document, that John was banished twice to the same island.

It appear you are claiming there is no history of John being banished under other emperors. Yet, historians are all over the place.

"That John was banished to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse there, or at least saw the vision there, seems to be a fact plainly and explicitly vouched for in Rev. 1:9; and I know of no good reason for disbelieving this. On this point, all the opinions of antiquity, discrepant in other respects, fully agree. So much John himself says in this passage, and no more. Whether other facts of his book do not imply something more definite, is another question yet to be investigated. But it is plain, that the ancient writers did not look into the book at large for the chronology of the composition. Beyond the testimony of John himself, there is such a diversity of views, as serves to show that mere floating reports and surmises were the basis of these views. Were not this the case, how could there have been so great a variety of opinions about a simple matter of fact?" [Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse Vol I. Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, New York, 1845, p.271]​

On this point, Ken Gentry wrote:

"William Henry Simcox states that “there are statements in early Christian writers which seem to show that the tradition on this point was not absolutely unanimous.” [16] The generally accepted dates-from a few of the notable witnesses yield a wide range of diverse conclusions, including a pre-Vespasianic date (Epiphanies, Theophylact, the Syriac Revelation manuscripts), a Domitianic date (Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, Sulpicius Severus, Victorious), and a Trajanic date (Dorotheus). But beyond these few church fathers there are other historical witnesses, as well." [Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell. Dominion Press, Fort Worth, TX, 1989, p.44; citing [16] William Henry Simcox, The Revelation of St. John Divine. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1898), p. xiii.]​

There is also Clement of Alexandria, who "supports" an early banishment under Nero by his details of John's activities after banishment, not to mention his omission of the name of Domitian.

The fact that Preterism absolutely depends on a Neronic date for the Revelation is the reason that Preterists are willing to resort such desperate attempts in order to shore up this untenable position.

Put Futurist in the place of Preterist, and Domitian in place of Neronic, and you will have it right.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Biblewriter

First, I thank you for posting on subject, rather than bringing in irrevelant subjects, as so many love to do.

This is the entirety of your post that I will answer here, for it is the most demonstrably false.
​

Now, all you need to do is prove what I wrote is false. After all, your OP is loaded with conjecture.

Futurism would "die" if the so-called "Antichrist" (the Beast of the Revelation) was, in fact, the 6th in the line of Roman Caesars (Rev 17:10): a brutal tyrant named Nero: the one who persecuted the saints for 42 months (Rev 13:5, 7): the one who actually ruled over the entire world in those days, which was the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1, Rev 13:5).

Originally Posted by Biblewriter

The fact that Preterism absolutely depends on a Neronic date for the Revelation is the reason that Preterists are willing to resort such desperate attempts in order to shore up this untenable position.
​

Put Futurist in the place of Preterist, and Domitian in place of Neronic, and you will have it right.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Now, all you need to do is prove what I wrote is false. After all, your OP is loaded with conjecture.



Futurism would "die" if the so-called "Antichrist" (the Beast of the Revelation) was, in fact, the 6th in the line of Roman Caesars (Rev 17:10): a brutal tyrant named Nero: the one who persecuted the saints for 42 months (Rev 13:5, 7): the one who actually ruled over the entire world in those days, which was the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1, Rev 13:5).

Not once in the new testament (new covenant) is the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned as a past fact; unless Babylon the Great of the Revelation is Jerusalem, which many highly-recognized biblical scholars believe, and who have both scripture and history to back them up. Even remarkable "literal" events, such as hails stones weighing a talent (Rev 16:21) (which is a hundred pounds), have a simple fulfillment in first century siege of Jerusalem:

"The [catapult] engines, that all the [Roman] legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs [1/4 mile] and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space." [Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, V.6.3]​

Sit back and think about that bit of history! And think about this: the most significant event in the history of the Bible--old and new covenants; an event that destroyed about 4 million lives, made the former holy land a desolate waste land, and forever eliminated the role of Judaism, the land of Israel, and the old covenant in the lives of God's chosen people, is not mentioned once as a past fact?

Well, it is, in fact, mentioned, but in typical prophetic language. Jerusalem is all but mentioned by name in Rev 11:8 as the great city; and Jesus made it abundantly clear that Jerusalem was Babylon the Great when he said the blood of all the prophets would be on the head of both Jerusalem (Matt 23:35-38; Lk 11:49-51) and Babylon the Great (Rev 18:24). It is simply illogical to believe they are not the same city.



Debates on the dating of the Revelation have been abundant and continuous for a long time, maybe since the Reformation. I am astonished you were "hardly aware" of them.



I am really not a preterist, so I don't care one way or the other. As for future events, I am as much in the dark as everyone else. But I can promise everyone this about the future: every work will be brought into judgement, including every idle word.



The problem is, they either have no supporting references, or they don't agree with each other. In the case of Irenaeus, he doesn't even agree with himself. LOL!

This is Victorinus:

"11. "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 Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should 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." [Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol XVIII. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870, p.417-418]​

Everyone take a good look at what Victorinus wrote, a century after Irenaeus, and two centuries after the real apocalypse: the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. First, Victorinus provided no reference whatsoever. Second he claims that John wrote the Apocalypse and "sat on it" until after he was released, which Victorinus claims is a long period of time later. Only then did John "deliver it." None of that makes any sense, considering the urgency of the matter (the "time is at hand"); that is unless Victorinus was simply embellishing what he had previously read from Irenaeus.

I was puzzled why you used the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John", when it does not support your conclusion. Read it again:

"And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name, who spread a report about the seat of empire of the Romans, saying that it would quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over to another. And Domitian, troubled by what was said, sent a centurion with soldiers to seize John, and bring him." [Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1916, p.560]​

In what book can we find John referring to the "seat of the Roman empire", other than the Revelation?



There is nothing established about it, except in the minds of futurists. There are many brilliant scholars who dispute the late date theory.



It appear you are claiming there is no history of John being banished under other emperors. Yet, historians are all over the place.

"That John was banished to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse there, or at least saw the vision there, seems to be a fact plainly and explicitly vouched for in Rev. 1:9; and I know of no good reason for disbelieving this. On this point, all the opinions of antiquity, discrepant in other respects, fully agree. So much John himself says in this passage, and no more. Whether other facts of his book do not imply something more definite, is another question yet to be investigated. But it is plain, that the ancient writers did not look into the book at large for the chronology of the composition. Beyond the testimony of John himself, there is such a diversity of views, as serves to show that mere floating reports and surmises were the basis of these views. Were not this the case, how could there have been so great a variety of opinions about a simple matter of fact?" [Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse Vol I. Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, New York, 1845, p.271]​

On this point, Ken Gentry wrote:

"William Henry Simcox states that “there are statements in early Christian writers which seem to show that the tradition on this point was not absolutely unanimous.” [16] The generally accepted dates-from a few of the notable witnesses yield a wide range of diverse conclusions, including a pre-Vespasianic date (Epiphanies, Theophylact, the Syriac Revelation manuscripts), a Domitianic date (Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, Sulpicius Severus, Victorious), and a Trajanic date (Dorotheus). But beyond these few church fathers there are other historical witnesses, as well." [Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell. Dominion Press, Fort Worth, TX, 1989, p.44; citing [16] William Henry Simcox, The Revelation of St. John Divine. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1898), p. xiii.]​

There is also Clement of Alexandria, who "supports" an early banishment under Nero by his details of John's activities after banishment, not to mention his omission of the name of Domitian.



Put Futurist in the place of Preterist, and Domitian in place of Neronic, and you will have it right.

!00% of the conjecture you speak of is on the part of the Preterists.

The actual fact is that, aside from two witnesses that are widely condemned as unreliable, not just by futurists, but even by Preterists, there is not even one witness previous to the sixth century that makes even one unequivocal statement that dates either the giving of the Revelation or the banishment of John before the time of Domitian.

Without even one exception, every other witness from before the sixth century has to be interpreted to come up with the conclusion that it dates the Revelation to the time of Nero. The most cpmmon such interpretation is that Clement's words, "the tyrant" have to be a reference to Nero. But this is belied by the fact that numerous ancient writers explicitly called Domitian a Tyrant.

Such assumptions are also involved in claiming that the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" Show that the Revelation was given before the time of Domitian. For John could very well have made such statements before he was given the Apocalyptic vision. For the book of Daniel clealy says the same thing. But "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" very clearly state that it was Domitian that banished John "to an island."

You are making two very serious errors concerning the historical records. The first is condemning ancient writers because they cited no authorities in regard to the historical fats they allege. But this is a nonsense argument. for very few ancient writers ever cited the sources of their information. They simply wrote as being authorities in their own rights. citing where they got their information was something that was simply not done, at least as an ordinary thing.

The second error is far more serious. You are claiming that the writings of historians who are trying to prove a point is "historical evidence." What they say is not evidence at all. They have to quote the actual ancient documents upon which their opinions are based, with explicit citations as to where there statements can be found, before their word can be accepted as historical evidence.

And finally, Ken Gentry's citations are only proof of his willingness to cite questionable sources as if they were reliable. For instance, he cites Epiphanius, who he calls Epiphanies. Bit 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 even earlier, and 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.” https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter...ing-apocalypse So this lone voice of any writer provable to be previous to the sixth century is widely recognized as historically unreliable.

Again Gentry deceptively listsDorotheus, the Syriac Revelation manuscripts, and Theophylact as if they were "early Christian writers." But the first two of these are from the sixth century and the third is from the ninth century. Calling the first two of these "early Christian writers" is equivalent to saying a twentieth century writer wrote "soon after Columbus discovered America." And calling the third an "early christian writer" is equivalent to saying the same twentieth century writer wrote "soon after the battle of Hastings."

This is the kind of deceptiveness typically found in Preterists documents.

Now, after all this, I challenge you to demonstrate even one "conjecture" in my entire multi-part OP of this thread. (Posts 1-7 pf this thread.) What I have presented is hard, undeniable, facts.

 

[Bible2]

Rev20 said in post 452:

Futurism would "die" if the so-called "Antichrist" (the Beast of the Revelation) was, in fact, the 6th in the line of Roman Caesars (Rev 17:10) . . .

The 7 heads of Revelation's "beast" in its empire aspect (Revelation 13:1, Revelation 17:3) represent 7 different empires (Revelation 17:9-10): Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and (possibly) Islam. The first 5 had fallen by the time of John the apostle in the 1st century AD: "five are fallen" (Revelation 17:10, Revelation 1:1b-2). The 6th (Rome) existed at the time of John: "one is" (Revelation 17:10). The 7th (possibly Islam) hadn't come by the time of John: "the other is not yet come" (Revelation 17:10). The empire of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) will be a different, still-future, 8th head (Revelation 17:11), which will be a revival of one of the 5 empires that had fallen by the time of John (Revelation 17:8,10,11). It will be a revival of the empire of Babylon. The Antichrist will transform the present-day, rebuilt city of Babylon (in Iraq) into the capital of his world empire, only to see his city of Babylon ultimately destroyed at Jesus' 2nd coming (Isaiah 13).

Before the 2nd coming, when the world is brought into the worship of Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and the Antichrist, during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9), the Antichrist will build their main temple in the city of Babylon. For a temple to "wickedness" will be built in Shinar (Babylonia) (Zechariah 5:8,11), and the Antichrist is called "that Wicked" (2 Thessalonians 2:8). Also, the dragon has been the god worshipped in the city of Babylon since ancient times.

The Antichrist may claim to be Nebuchadnezzar returned, and so reinstitute the system that Nebuchadnezzar set up whereby everyone had to worship an image or be killed (Daniel 3, Revelation 13:15). The Antichrist may also claim to be, at the same time, the return of Nimrod (the founder of Babylon: Genesis 10:8-10), and Hammurabi, and Asoka, and other famous rulers of the past. For he may claim that he has had many different "past lives" as various "enlightened" rulers.

Besides building a main temple in Babylon, the Antichrist will also sit (at least one time) in a future, 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and declare himself God there (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36,31, Matthew 24:15, Revelation 11:1-2). The Antichrist could also sit (at least one time) in other religions' holiest shrines, and declare himself to be God there as well. For example, he could also sit in Islam's Kaaba in Mecca, in the Sikhs' Golden Temple in Amritsar, in Catholicism's St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, etc.

Rev20 said in post 452:

. . . a brutal tyrant named Nero

Note that Nero didn't fulfill the detailed references to the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) in Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 16:2-16, Revelation 19:19-21, and Revelation 20:4. Also, Nero didn't fulfill other prophecies regarding the Antichrist (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9, Daniel 11:31,36; cf. Matthew 24:15). And John the apostle didn't see the vision of Revelation until decades after the time of Nero. For Irenaeus (born c. 140 AD) said: "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 [John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision [Revelation]. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies 5:30:3c). The end of Domitian's reign was 96 AD. Nero's reign was 54-68 AD. The detailed prophecies regarding the Antichrist, just as the rest of the tribulation prophecies of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, have never been fulfilled.

Any mistaken teaching which claims that the Antichrist has already come and gone could be employed in our future by the real Antichrist to fool some Christians into thinking that he isn't the Antichrist.

Also, regarding the claim (made by some) that Nero's name in Hebrew gematria added up to 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18), is there an ancient historical source which shows how "Nero Caesar" was usually transliterated into Hebrew at the time that Revelation was written, so we can confirm whether or not the usual Hebrew transliteration of "Nero Caesar" added up to 666 in Hebrew gematria, instead of an intentionally-altered Hebrew spelling? For example, why was an "n" added after "Nero", to make "Neron"; and why was the "ae" of "Caesar" skipped to make "Csar", when, for example, the "ae" in "Israel" gets at least an "aleph" in Hebrew? Could "Neron Csar" in fact be an intentionally-altered, never-actually-used spelling that adds up to 666, just as people today could intentionally mistransliterate into Hebrew the name of someone living today so that the mistransliterated name adds up to 666 in Hebrew gematria? Also, just by chance there could be more than one person in the world whose name adds up to 666. So even if it could be proven that the usual Hebrew spelling of "Nero Caesar" added up to 666, or that the usual spelling of the name of someone living today adds up to 666, this doesn't require that that person is the Antichrist.

Also, should we even assume that the Antichrist's name has to be transliterated into Hebrew for it to add up to 666? For Revelation was originally addressed to Greek-speaking Gentile churches in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) (what's now western Turkey), not to Hebrew-speaking Jewish churches in Judaea. And John the apostle used 3 letters from the Greek alphabet to express the number 666 in Revelation 13:18 (in the original Greek Textus Receptus), not any letters from the Hebrew alphabet. (But this doesn't require that the Antichrist's name has to be transliterated into Greek in order for it to add up to 666, for John used the Greek alphabet only because it was the most common one used by the believers he was addressing at the time that Revelation was written.) Also, even when "Nero Caesar" (instead of "Neron Csar") is transliterated into Hebrew, it doesn't have to result in the name adding up to 666:

N - Nun = 50 (cf. the "Ne" in "Nebo" in the Hebrew of Num. 32:3: Nun for the "N" and nothing for the "e")
E /
R - Reysh = 200
O - Vav = 6 (cf. the "o" in "Nebo" in the Hebrew of Num. 32:3 being the letter Vav)

C - Qowph = 100 (cf. "Kareah" in the Hebrew of Jer. 40:8, & "Caesar" being "Kaisar" in the Greek of Mt. 22:17)
A - Aleph = 1 (cf. the "ae" in "Israel" in the Hebrew of Gen. 32:28: Aleph for the "a" and nothing for the "e")
E /
S - Samek = 60 (cf. the "sar" in "Ellasar" in the Hebrew of Gen. 14:1: Samek for the "s" & nothing for the "a")
A /
R - Reysh = 200

Total = 617

Rev20 said in post 452:

Not once in the new testament (new covenant) is the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned as a past fact . . .

Since John saw his Revelation vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c), and Revelation is about future events (Revelation 1:1), not past events, there was no need to mention the past events of 70 AD.

Rev20 said in post 452:

. . . unless Babylon the Great of the Revelation is Jerusalem

Note that while the corrupt aspects of 1st century AD Jerusalem are included in what Revelation's symbolic "Babylon" (Revelation chapters 17-18) represents, it 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).

Rev20 said in post 452:

Even remarkable "literal" events, such as hails stones weighing a talent (Rev 16:21) (which is a hundred pounds), have a simple fulfillment in first century siege of Jerusalem . . .

The world won't experience the 7 last plagues of the 7 vials of God's wrath (Revelation chapters 15-16), the last stage of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, until after the never-fulfilled Revelation chapters 6 to 15 have been fulfilled. At the 1st vial, an awful sore will appear on only those people who will have received the Antichrist's mark and worshipped his image (Revelation 16:2). At the 2nd vial, the sea will become like the blood of a dead man, and every living creature in the sea will die (Revelation 16:3). At the 3rd vial, all natural, surface sources of fresh water will become blood (Revelation 16:4). At the 4th vial, men will be scorched with fire shot out from the sun (Revelation 16:8). This would be a solar-flare coronal mass ejection of solar plasma, which could make its way down to the surface of the earth due to the earth's magnetic field being disrupted during a magnetic-pole reversal which could occur near the end of the future tribulation.

At the 5th vial, the whole world will be plunged into literal darkness (Revelation 16:10). At the 6th vial, unclean spirits like frogs will come out of the mouths of Lucifer (the dragon, Satan: Revelation 12:9), and the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast), and the False Prophet (Revelation 16:13). And these unclean spirits like frogs will go forth and perform amazing miracles to convince the world's armies to gather together in an attempt to defeat YHWH God (Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19). The Euphrates will dry up so that the armies of "the kings of the east" (Revelation 16:12) (i.e. the vast armies of China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Iran, Indonesia) can easily cross the riverbed and gather at the "place" called Armageddon (Revelation 16:16) (Har Megiddo: Mount Megiddo in northern Israel). Once they have gathered there, as only a staging area, with all the other armies of the world (Revelation 16:14,16), they won't wage battle there (that's why the Bible doesn't refer to a "battle" of Armageddon). Instead, they will travel south to pillage Jerusalem, right before Jesus returns and defeats them (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:19-21).

At the 7th vial, right before Jesus returns (Revelation 16:17,19, Revelation 19:2-21), there will be a huge earthquake which will affect the whole world (Revelation 16:18-20), and 100-pound hailstones will pummel the earth (Revelation 16:21). The 7th vial will also be when Revelation's symbolic (and worldwide) "Babylon" (Revelation chapters 17-18) will be destroyed (Revelation 16:19).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Rev20

Now, all you need to do is prove what I wrote is false. After all, your OP is loaded with conjecture.



Futurism would "die" if the so-called "Antichrist" (the Beast of the Revelation) was, in fact, the 6th in the line of Roman Caesars (Rev 17:10): a brutal tyrant named Nero: the one who persecuted the saints for 42 months (Rev 13:5, 7): the one who actually ruled over the entire world in those days, which was the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1, Rev 13:5).

Not once in the new testament (new covenant) is the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned as a past fact; unless Babylon the Great of the Revelation is Jerusalem, which many highly-recognized biblical scholars believe, and who have both scripture and history to back them up. Even remarkable "literal" events, such as hails stones weighing a talent (Rev 16:21) (which is a hundred pounds), have a simple fulfillment in first century siege of Jerusalem:

"The [catapult] engines, that all the [Roman] legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs [1/4 mile] and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space." [Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, V.6.3]​

Sit back and think about that bit of history! And think about this: the most significant event in the history of the Bible--old and new covenants; an event that destroyed about 4 million lives, made the former holy land a desolate waste land, and forever eliminated the role of Judaism, the land of Israel, and the old covenant in the lives of God's chosen people, is not mentioned once as a past fact?

Well, it is, in fact, mentioned, but in typical prophetic language. Jerusalem is all but mentioned by name in Rev 11:8 as the great city; and Jesus made it abundantly clear that Jerusalem was Babylon the Great when he said the blood of all the prophets would be on the head of both Jerusalem (Matt 23:35-38; Lk 11:49-51) and Babylon the Great (Rev 18:24). It is simply illogical to believe they are not the same city.



Debates on the dating of the Revelation have been abundant and continuous for a long time, maybe since the Reformation. I am astonished you were "hardly aware" of them.



I am really not a preterist, so I don't care one way or the other. As for future events, I am as much in the dark as everyone else. But I can promise everyone this about the future: every work will be brought into judgement, including every idle word.



The problem is, they either have no supporting references, or they don't agree with each other. In the case of Irenaeus, he doesn't even agree with himself. LOL!

This is Victorinus:

"11. "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 Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should 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." [Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol XVIII. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870, p.417-418]​

Everyone take a good look at what Victorinus wrote, a century after Irenaeus, and two centuries after the real apocalypse: the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. First, Victorinus provided no reference whatsoever. Second he claims that John wrote the Apocalypse and "sat on it" until after he was released, which Victorinus claims is a long period of time later. Only then did John "deliver it." None of that makes any sense, considering the urgency of the matter (the "time is at hand"); that is unless Victorinus was simply embellishing what he had previously read from Irenaeus.

I was puzzled why you used the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John", when it does not support your conclusion. Read it again:

"And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name, who spread a report about the seat of empire of the Romans, saying that it would quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over to another. And Domitian, troubled by what was said, sent a centurion with soldiers to seize John, and bring him." [Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1916, p.560]​

In what book can we find John referring to the "seat of the Roman empire", other than the Revelation?



There is nothing established about it, except in the minds of futurists. There are many brilliant scholars who dispute the late date theory.



It appear you are claiming there is no history of John being banished under other emperors. Yet, historians are all over the place.

"That John was banished to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse there, or at least saw the vision there, seems to be a fact plainly and explicitly vouched for in Rev. 1:9; and I know of no good reason for disbelieving this. On this point, all the opinions of antiquity, discrepant in other respects, fully agree. So much John himself says in this passage, and no more. Whether other facts of his book do not imply something more definite, is another question yet to be investigated. But it is plain, that the ancient writers did not look into the book at large for the chronology of the composition. Beyond the testimony of John himself, there is such a diversity of views, as serves to show that mere floating reports and surmises were the basis of these views. Were not this the case, how could there have been so great a variety of opinions about a simple matter of fact?" [Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse Vol I. Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, New York, 1845, p.271]​

On this point, Ken Gentry wrote:

"William Henry Simcox states that “there are statements in early Christian writers which seem to show that the tradition on this point was not absolutely unanimous.” [16] The generally accepted dates-from a few of the notable witnesses yield a wide range of diverse conclusions, including a pre-Vespasianic date (Epiphanies, Theophylact, the Syriac Revelation manuscripts), a Domitianic date (Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, Sulpicius Severus, Victorious), and a Trajanic date (Dorotheus). But beyond these few church fathers there are other historical witnesses, as well." [Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell. Dominion Press, Fort Worth, TX, 1989, p.44; citing [16] William Henry Simcox, The Revelation of St. John Divine. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1898), p. xiii.]​

There is also Clement of Alexandria, who "supports" an early banishment under Nero by his details of John's activities after banishment, not to mention his omission of the name of Domitian.



Put Futurist in the place of Preterist, and Domitian in place of Neronic, and you will have it right.
​

!00% of the conjecture you speak of is on the part of the Preterists............

This is the kind of deceptiveness typically found in Preterists documents.

Now, after all this, I challenge you to demonstrate even one "conjecture" in my entire multi-part OP of this thread. (Posts 1-7 pf this thread.) What I have presented is hard, undeniable, facts.

Calling Preterists "deceptive" does not help your case any, and is in actually an ad-hominem.
Preterists can present just as strong a case for their view, just as futurists can do the same.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

Calling Preterists "deceptive" does not help your case any, and is in actually an ad-hominem.
Preterists can present just as strong a case for their view, just as futurists can do the same.


.

Unfortunately, this is simply incorrect. Preterists must rely on assumptions about what certain ancient writers meant. Futurists have numerous ancient sources that made clear statements that required no interpretation. And I am not speaking of Irenaeus. I do not accept the claim that his words were not clear, but he is only one of four independent ancient sources, that is, sources that dare not dependent on any other source.

And Preterists do not have even one source from before the sixth century that is considered reliable and made a clear statement about an early date. That it why they have to pretend that sixth to ninth century writers, that is, early to mid medieval writers, are "early Christian writers".

In the end, Preterists have to depend on the "internal evidence" of the Revelation itself. But I have yet to see even one piece of this alleged "internal evidence" that even has significance without first assuming that Preterism is correct.

 

[ebedmelech]

Unfortunately, this is simply incorrect. Preterists must rely on assumptions about what certain ancient writers meant. Futurists have numerous ancient sources that made clear statements that required no interpretation. And I am not speaking of Irenaeus. I do not accept the claim that his words were not clear, but he is only one of four independent ancient sources, that is, sources that dare not dependent on any other source.

And Preterists do not have even one source from before the sixth century that is considered reliable and made a clear statement about an early date. That it why they have to pretend that sixth to ninth century writers are "early".


In the end, Preterists have to depend on the "internal evidence" of the Revelation itself. But I have yet to see even one piece of this alleged "internal evidence" that even has significance without first assuming that preterism os correct.

Well that's just flat wrong! WHile I disagree with "full preterism" they are "point on" when it comes to this issue that Revelation was written about 67-68 AD.

What evidence does John give us?

*He was in "the tribulation"

*Seven letters to seven churches, preparing them for the tribulation.

*The fourth beast...which is that of Daniel's description is right there in Revelation 13, which is Rome!

*The 7 kings of the beasts are the Emperor of Rome and the one reigning is Nero!

*Babylon "Mother of Harlots" is Jerusalem...70 AD.

The will be no "revived Roman Empire"...and there will be no person that can be called antichrist...because there are many antichrist.

On this point preterist are correct and the futurist are in "fantasy eschatology".

Jesus will return...resurrect ALL!!! The bodies of dead believers will join them as they return with Christ..living believers will be raptured, and we will meet him in the air!

Jesus will then judge the world in righteousness!

 

[Biblewriter]

Well that's just flat wrong! WHile I disagree with "full preterism" they are "point on" when it comes to this issue that Revelation was written about 67-68 AD.

What evidence does John give us?

*He was in "the tribulation"

*Seven letters to seven churches, preparing them for the tribulation.

*The fourth beast...which is that of Daniel's description is right there in Revelation 13, which is Rome!

*The 7 kings of the beasts are the Emperor of Rome and the one reigning is Nero!

*Babylon "Mother of Harlots" is Jerusalem...70 AD.

The will be no "revived Roman Empire"...and there will be no person that can be called antichrist...because there are many antichrist.

On this point preterist are correct and the futurist are in "fantasy eschatology".

Jesus will return...resurrect ALL!!! The bodies of dead believers will join them as they return with Christ..living believers will be raptured, and we will meet him in the air!

Jesus will then judge the world in righteousness!

All of these are very persuasive arguments, if you start with the assumption that the subject if the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. But they are persuasive only if you start with that presupposition.

 

[ebedmelech]

All of these are very persuasive arguments, if you start with the assumption that the subject if the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. But they are persuasive only if you start with that presupposition.

That's not presupposition Biblewriter! Even the apostles late writnig speak to the persecution that would come Paul, Peter, and John.

What you need to realize is YOU presuppose Revelation is not about 70 AD...yet Jesus told them their house (temple), would be left to them desolate as well as the land.

The presuppositon is on the futurist side...ignoring history as well as thinking Ezekiels temple will be built, and prophecies that have been fulfilled have not been.

Like your *idea* of "The End Time King of Judah"...NOTHING supports that!