Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Interplanner · Dec 6, 2013

The flood thing: in Dan 9 it is "like" a flood because it is actually talking about ongoing trouble and war.

this is why Jesus used the flood analogy also, in Mt 24B. The ones taken by it are destroyed as were those in Noah's.

To compare, the last verse of Dan 9 says an end will be poured out on the 'rebel that desolates' (ch 8). That does not mean God was up in heaven pouring things out of actual bowls or vials actually; but it does help explain the use of bowls and vials in the Rev.

btw, do the literalists realize that bowls, vials and trumpets are not, you know, literal, right there in the Rev?

Interplanner · Dec 6, 2013

JTF, 13 goes future? There is no change in tense or style.

I don't see any change in tense or style from 1:12 onward.

Your remark that it opens and closes saying it is about the future is very confusing. It actually opens and closes with the same sense of immediate relevance. The hearers of it are appealed to to keep strong in faith and not give about things right in their face right then. And please don't give me that "God's perspective" stuff about "soon" = X000 years. That's just futurism popping in the future like it does at Mt 24:4 and Dan 9:27 for no reason.

Just The Facts · Dec 6, 2013

Hi Inter

Quote
To compare, the last verse of Dan 9 says an end will be poured out on the 'rebel that desolates'
End Quote

That is not what I was saying. It says Jerusalem's end comes with a flood.

26: And after threescore and two weeks shall The Prince be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

I am well aware of the belief that this reference to the end being poured out on the desolater is thought to be a tie in to rev and the plagues.

I would agree it is a reference to this but the last week of this prophecy is not yet future. Daniel 9 has been twisted so badly over the centuries its true meaning has been lost. The reference to the plagues is only because the Destroyers of Jerusalem IE the Roman Empire is the Empire of the beast from the Pit.

Quote
Your remark that it opens and closes saying it is about the future is very confusing. It actually opens and closes with the same sense of immediate relevance. The hearers of it are appealed to to keep strong in faith and not give about things right in their face right then. And please don't give me that "God's perspective" stuff about "soon" = X000 years. That's just futurism popping in the future like it does at Mt 24:4 and Dan 9:27 for no reason.
End Quote

Inter Inter Inter......I am not a dispensationalist. I do not Pop into the future. I also do not deny history and fact and the plain words of Jesus.

Let me ask you a question. When did this start happening.

9: Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

That is Christians being killed because of the name. Not because of Individual actions but because of Name.

ebedmelech · Dec 6, 2013

Biblewriter said:
If you had even bothered to red what you are so cavilierly dismissing, you would know that I presented absolute proof that what you are saying is simply not true. That the quotations I made conclusively prove an absolute minimum of four ancient sources of information, at least three of which were ante-nicene.

You *THINK* you presented "absolute proof* Biblewriter! Within the mold of your eschatological belief. However, the objective is to rightly understand Revelation in light of historical fact...and YOU DON'T.

Once more, when Jesus came to earth and started His ministry, the Pharisees and Sadducees were the top theologians of the day, everyone thought they had the answers.

The ante-nicene fathers are good resources on some things...but don't just pick the ones you want...but also remember they were men of flesh, just as we are. Therefore, they can and were in error in *some* things they say.

So you can think your information is correct. The fact is Jesus will return and we'll know even as we are known.

Revelation is written pre AD 70...and that's how I see it and will continue to see it.

Is there going to be a third temple? It's not in Revelation.

Are the "7 church ages"? Revelation says 7 churches.

Just a couple things that just are NOT in scripture that are contrived to be in scripture by folks like Darby and Scofield.

precepts · Dec 6, 2013

How old would John have to be to recieve the revelation in 95 ad, muchless to deliver it to the 7 churches, and at that age would he be able to testify to anyone? I mean this is atleast 60 yrs after Christ's crucifixtion. Don't the scholars realize the fact?

Secondly, I have found what Irenaeus has written to be a lie. Irenaeus, in his attempt to persuade the church that he was handed down true doctrine thru a student of John, said in his wiritings; the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan, the reason why the tribe of Dan isn't among the 144,000 saints in Rev 7. Definately, a lie. He based the fact of the Antichrist coming from the tribe of Dan on his misinterpretation of an OT verse:

Jer 8:16 The snorting of his horses was heard from Dan: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing of his strong ones; for they are come, and have devoured the land, and all that is in it; the city, and those that dwell therein.

The funny thing about this is the context is about the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. His horses were heard from the tribe of Dan when he came to attack Israel. It's not the tribe of Dan horses, but Nebuchadnezzar's horses that's heard by all Israel, heard coming from the tribe of Dan's direction.

Thirdly, Irenaeus lived about what, 120 yrs after John? I think he said he was a student of a student of John, an elderly man he met when he was a youngster. So, the question is, how could anything be in his time when he wasn't even born in the 1st century ad.

riverrat · Dec 6, 2013

Interplanner said:
who are "The Preterists". Are you really going to write so much and not define a key technical term in your opening paragraph?

Did you mention Van Meter's counterarguments?

Me thinks he is including you!

Biblewriter · Dec 6, 2013

ebedmelech said:
You *THINK* you presented "absolute proof* Biblewriter! Within the mold of your eschatological belief. However, the objective is to rightly understand Revelation in light of historical fact...and YOU DON'T.

Once more, when Jesus came to earth and started His ministry, the Pharisees and Sadducees were the top theologians of the day, everyone thought they had the answers.

The ante-nicene fathers are good resources on some things...but don't just pick the ones you want...but also remember they were men of flesh, just as we are. Therefore, they can and were in error in *some* things they say.

So you can think your information is correct. The fact is Jesus will return and we'll know even as we are known.

Revelation is written pre AD 70...and that's how I see it and will continue to see it.

Is there going to be a third temple? It's not in Revelation.

Are the "7 church ages"? Revelation says 7 churches.

Just a couple things that just are NOT in scripture that are contrived to be in scripture by folks like Darby and Scofield.

The point of this thread was not what the Bible teaches. it is about what ancient writers said about when the Revelation was written. And I simply quoted what they said. And these quotations contain absolute proof that these men said that the Revelation was written during the reign of Damatian, and absolute proof that at least three of these ancient writers based their comments on information other than the word of Irenaeus.

And if you had even bothered to actually read it, instead of simply reacting emotionally to it, you would realized that the quotations I presented were indeed absolute proof of these things.

What I did NOT say is that any of this proves when the Revelation was written. I only proved, beyond the possibility of rational debate,that this is what the overwhelming majority of ancient commentators said.

As to the rest of your comments, they are simply an attempt to hijack this thread, and I will not take the bait.

Biblewriter · Dec 6, 2013

precepts said:
How old would John have to be to recieve the revelation in 95 ad, muchless to deliver it to the 7 churches, and at that age would he be able to testify to anyone? I mean this is atleast 60 yrs after Christ's crucifixtion. Don't the scholars realize the fact?

Secondly, I have found what Irenaeus has written to be a lie. Irenaeus, in his attempt to persuade the church that he was handed down true doctrine thru a student of John, said in his wiritings; the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan, the reason why the tribe of Dan isn't among the 144,000 saints in Rev 7. Definately, a lie. He based the fact of the Antichrist coming from the tribe of Dan on his misinterpretation of an OT verse:

The funny thing about this is the context is about the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. His horses were heard from the tribe of Dan when he came to attack Israel. It's not the tribe of Dan horses, but Nebuchadnezzar's horses that's heard by all Israel, heard coming from the tribe of Dan's direction.

Thirdly, Irenaeus lived about what, 120 yrs after John? I think he said he was a student of a student of John, an elderly man he met when he was a youngster. So, the question is, how could anything be in his time when he wasn't even born in the 1st century ad.

Not only the modern scholars, but even the ancient commentators, not only realized, but commented on the unusual nature of the fact that John was so string when he was so old.

The rest of this is an attempt to hijack this thread, and I will not take the bait.

Biblewriter · Dec 6, 2013

Just The Facts said:
Hi Inter

Quote
To compare, the last verse of Dan 9 says an end will be poured out on the 'rebel that desolates'
End Quote

That is not what I was saying. It says Jerusalem's end comes with a flood.

26: And after threescore and two weeks shall The Prince be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

I am well aware of the belief that this reference to the end being poured out on the desolater is thought to be a tie in to rev and the plagues.

I would agree it is a reference to this but the last week of this prophecy is not yet future. Daniel 9 has been twisted so badly over the centuries its true meaning has been lost. The reference to the plagues is only because the Destroyers of Jerusalem IE the Roman Empire is the Empire of the beast from the Pit.

Quote
Your remark that it opens and closes saying it is about the future is very confusing. It actually opens and closes with the same sense of immediate relevance. The hearers of it are appealed to to keep strong in faith and not give about things right in their face right then. And please don't give me that "God's perspective" stuff about "soon" = X000 years. That's just futurism popping in the future like it does at Mt 24:4 and Dan 9:27 for no reason.
End Quote

Inter Inter Inter......I am not a dispensationalist. I do not Pop into the future. I also do not deny history and fact and the plain words of Jesus.

Let me ask you a question. When did this start happening.

9: Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

That is Christians being killed because of the name. Not because of Individual actions but because of Name.

The subject of this thread is the historical evidence as to when the Revelation was given. Please do not respond to the trolls who are trying to hijack this thread.

Biblewriter · Dec 6, 2013

Interplanner said:
The flood thing: in Dan 9 it is "like" a flood because it is actually talking about ongoing trouble and war.

this is why Jesus used the flood analogy also, in Mt 24B. The ones taken by it are destroyed as were those in Noah's.

To compare, the last verse of Dan 9 says an end will be poured out on the 'rebel that desolates' (ch 8). That does not mean God was up in heaven pouring things out of actual bowls or vials actually; but it does help explain the use of bowls and vials in the Rev.

btw, do the literalists realize that bowls, vials and trumpets are not, you know, literal, right there in the Rev?

Please respond to the Op or post on a different thread.

Biblewriter · Dec 6, 2013

Every one of the posters that have attacked the OP in this thread have revealed, by the very wording of their posts, that they have not even bothered to read the evidence presented here.

They are so persuaded that their position has to be correct that they are unable to even consider evidence that demonstrates that what they are saying is not correct.

So I will give a short summary here. In the first place, ignore, if you wish, my comments about what these ancient writers said. Just read their actual words which I have quoted here.

The quotations provided include four ancient writers, three of which were ante-nicene, which each gave details that none of the others gave. This conclusively proves that these four ancient writers were basing their comments on an absolute minimum of four independent sources of information. This is conclusive proof that the last three of these were not simply basing what they said on what Irenaeus, the earliest of these writers, said, as Preterists falsely caim.

In addition to this, I quoted three other ancient writers who said the same things, but did not say anything no one else said. And I pointed out that out of all these writers, only one of them mentioned the comments by Irenaeus.

After that I reviewed the ancient writers that Preterists claim said the opposite, demonstrating that their claims are, in every case, at least highly questionable.

Two of these are unquestionably reliable witnesses, but the Preterist interpretations of the words of both of them are questionable.

Two other ancient documents contain statement that clearly indicate an early date for the Revelation. But both of these documents are from sources that have been proven to be highly unreliable in numerous other details. It is unreasonable to base historical opinions on what either of these said.

So the score is seven ancient sources, including at least four independent sources of information, for a late date.

Two ancient sources that might indicate an early date.

And two ancient sources that clearly indicate an early date, but both of these have been proved to be highly unreliable.

If any of my detractors give evidence that they have actually read the OP, and respond rationally to it, rather than just emotionally, I will be glad to discuss their opinions. Otherwise, I have better things to do.

ebedmelech · Dec 6, 2013

Biblewriter said:
The point of this thread was not what the Bible teaches. it is about what ancient writers said about when the Revelation was written. And I simply quoted what they said. And these quotations contain absolute proof that these men said that the Revelation was written during the reign of Damatian, and absolute proof that at least three of these ancient writers based their comments on information other than the word of Irenaeus.

And if you had even bothered to actually read it, instead of simply reacting emotionally to it, you would realized that the quotations I presented were indeed absolute proof of these things.

What I did NOT say is that any of this proves when the Revelation was written. I only proved, beyond the possibility of rational debate,that this is what the overwhelming majority of ancient commentators said.

As to the rest of your comments, they are simply an attempt to hijack this thread, and I will not take the bait.

Biblewriter, I've been there with you before. So you just carry on *thinking* you have "absolute proof".

We've gone this route way back...so why do it again. Keep with what you think brother...Jesus is coming...and like I said, we'll know.

precepts · Dec 7, 2013

Biblewriter said:
Not only the modern scholars, but even the ancient commentators, not only realized, but commented on the unusual nature of the fact that John was so string when he was so old.

The rest of this is an attempt to hijack this thread, and I will not take the bait.

In what way? I did some reading on Irenaeus today and found my third point to be off key, but my second point still stands:

I have found what Irenaeus has written to be a lie. Irenaeus, in his attempt to persuade the church that he was handed down true doctrine thru a student of John, said in his wiritings; the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan, the reason why the tribe of Dan isn't among the 144,000 saints in Rev 7. Definately, a lie. He based the fact of the Antichrist coming from the tribe of Dan on his misinterpretation of an OT verse:

The funny thing about this is the context is about the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. His horses were heard from the tribe of Dan when he came to attack Israel. It's not the tribe of Dan horses, but Nebuchadnezzar's horses that's heard by all Israel, heard coming from the tribe of Dan's direction.

You said you had absolute proof. This proves Irenaeus isn't a reliable source, eventhough I didn't read thru the whole thread.

shturt678 · Dec 7, 2013

Biblewriter said:
Every one of the posters that have attacked the OP in this thread have revealed, by the very wording of their posts, that they have not even bothered to read the evidence presented here.

They are so persuaded that their position has to be correct that they are unable to even consider evidence that demonstrates that what they are saying is not correct.

So I will give a short summary here. In the first place, ignore, if you wish, my comments about what these ancient writers said. Just read their actual words which I have quoted here.

The quotations provided include four ancient writers, three of which were ante-nicene, which each gave details that none of the others gave. This conclusively proves that these four ancient writers were basing their comments on an absolute minimum of four independent sources of information. This is conclusive proof that the last three of these were not simply basing what they said on what Irenaeus, the earliest of these writers, said, as Preterists falsely caim.

In addition to this, I quoted three other ancient writers who said the same things, but did not say anything no one else said. And I pointed out that out of all these writers, only one of them mentioned the comments by Irenaeus.

After that I reviewed the ancient writers that Preterists claim said the opposite, demonstrating that their claims are, in every case, at least highly questionable.

Two of these are unquestionably reliable witnesses, but the Preterist interpretations of the words of both of them are questionable.

Two other ancient documents contain statement that clearly indicate an early date for the Revelation. But both of these documents are from sources that have been proven to be highly unreliable in numerous other details. It is unreasonable to base historical opinions on what either of these said.

So the score is seven ancient sources, including at least four independent sources of information, for a late date.

Two ancient sources that might indicate an early date.

And two ancient sources that clearly indicate an early date, but both of these have been proved to be highly unreliable.

If any of my detractors give evidence that they have actually read the OP, and respond rationally to it, rather than just emotionally, I will be glad to discuss their opinions. Otherwise, I have better things to do.

Although we have to agree to disagree with Rev.'s interpretations, ie, I agree to agree with your posit and work. btw did look over ebed's reference, and was intertesting.

Humble pie Jack, ie, amillennialist of course.

Biblewriter · Dec 7, 2013

shturt678 said:
Although we have to agree to disagree with Rev.'s interpretations, ie, I agree to agree with your posit and work. btw did look over ebed's reference, and was intertesting.

Humble pie Jack, ie, amillennialist of course.

Yes, the linked reference is interesting, and in actual fact, much of what I wrote in this OP was in direct answer to that work, which Ebed imagines I have never read.

Biblewriter · Dec 7, 2013

precepts said:
You said you had absolute proof. This proves Irenaeus isn't a reliable source, eventhough I didn't read thru the whole thread.

I never even so much as implied that what Irenaeus, or any other writer said was absolute proof.

What I did say I had proved, and absolutely, is that there were an absolute minimum of four independent ancient sources that put the Revelation during the reign of Domitian, and at least two others that said the same thing, and may or may not have based what they said on one of the others. There was exactly and only one other one that based his word at least in part on that of Irenaeus. This was absolutely proved, and that is all that was absolutely proved.

But anyone who has had any degree of experience in dealing with ancient sources, as I have for numerous years, knows that it is very rare to find a total of seven ancient sources for any fact at all.

It was only after I presented all this evidence that I gave my reasons for doubting all four sources to the contrary, as claimed by Preterists. Two of these sources were reliable, but there is reason to question that they were actually saying what Preterists claim they meant. And the other two are both famous for multiple errors in what they said.

So we have a total of seven reliable ancient sources that indicate the late date, with only one of the seven even accused of being unclear in what he said, and with an absolute minimum of four of these sources being clearly independent, versus two supposedly early date sources that are considered reliable, but which used words that do not necessarily indicate an early date, and two wholly unreliable early date sources.

And that is why essentially every historian who is not a Preterist has concluded that the Revelation was given in the later part of the reign of Domitian.

Interplanner · Dec 8, 2013

And, if you want to decide about this based on what is IN the text, see the thread reposted today. "10 Reasons why the Rev shows itself being before 70 AD"

Biblewriter · Dec 8, 2013

Interplanner said:
And, if you want to decide about this based on what is IN the text, see the thread reposted today. "10 Reasons why the Rev shows itself being before 70 AD"

All 10 of which are only reasons if you start out by assuming that the Preterist interpretation of the Revelation is correct.

Interplanner · Dec 8, 2013

Well, that's your security blanket (to dismiss as interpretation), but perhaps you will see them actually in the text some day, and see that you interpret too.

when a person says "soon" I'd rather go with that the "explainer" or "handler" who says it's about God's timeframe and means X000 years. Depends on how you want to look to those around you.

There is sense to your deductions of later writers, but ASIC's sense is the deduction of all 10 points being true at one time and setting, like the 616 thing.

Interplanner · Dec 8, 2013

For those new to the thread, the "other" is:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7791746/

Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency