Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[shturt678]

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.

Going over to Interplanner's dating Rev.'s thread, ie, thought I seen it, but didn't, ie, morning's study.

Humble pie Jack

 

[Biblewriter]

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.

If you could demonstrate even one New testament scripture that actually says what you claim they are all saying, it would be different. But I have repeatedly demonstrated that your conclusions about what the New Testament says about the Old Testament prophecies are nothing but interpretations. You have yet to show the first place where even one New Testament text says what you claim it consistently insists upon.

It is all interpretation. Interpretation of New testament statements used as an excuse to interpret Old Testament statements, instead of simply believing them.

 

[Interplanner]

Then be brave and write 1-2 lines on how Acts 2 uses Ps 16! For apparently you are interp-free! Go for it! No outside reasons! Just what it says!

I'm just laughing because you write pages of outside reasonings and think it is 'simply what it says' (in your line above).

 

[precepts]

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.

Seven ancient sources in agreement isn't a fact.

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.

You keep saying "reliable" as if it means factual. How can they be reliable if they're wrong?

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.

Maybe they should of looked at what scripture said:

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Isn't the woman Rome the city built on 7 hills, the 4th and 5th beast in Daniel, and the 1st beast in Rev 13?

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

The word "there" is the key to understanding what is being said. "There," in the city built on 7 hills, Rome, are kings, five are fallen etc.. That is one to eight kings being mentioned, and it's the 6th king that's existing presently, at the time of the Revelation. Roman history dictates the Roman "yr of 4 Emperors" in the yrs 68-69 ad, the time of rapid succession of emperors during the time of John. God's timeline.

Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

By the way, this beast is also the 1st beast in Rev 13 with the 7 heads. The hills are his 7 heads, and he's the 8th king on the city/woman/harlot built on the 7 hills/heads.

You seem to be a reasonable man, let's see if you can accept the facts.

 

[shturt678]

Seven ancient sources in agreement isn't a fact.



You keep saying "reliable" as if it means factual. How can they be reliable if they're wrong?

Maybe they should of looked at what scripture said:

Isn't the woman Rome the city built on 7 hills, the 4th and 5th beast in Daniel, and the 1st beast in Rev 13?

Not so literal, ie, Revelation Jesus showed; signified its meaning; all that comprised it John saw. Rev.13: the first beast = the whole antichristian power in the whole world - - the second beast = the whole antichristian propaganda in the whole world, ie, deceptive activity or propaganda.

The word "there" is the key to understanding what is being said. "There," in the city built on 7 hills, Rome, are kings, five are fallen etc.. That is one to eight kings being mentioned, and it's the 6th king that's existing presently, at the time of the Revelation. Roman history dictates the Roman "yr of 4 Emperors" in the yrs 68-69 ad, the time of rapid succession of emperors during the time of John. God's timeline.


By the way, this beast is also the 1st beast in Rev 13 with the 7 heads. The hills are his 7 heads, and he's the 8th king on the city/woman/harlot built on the 7 hills/heads.

You seem to be a reasonable man, let's see if you can accept the facts.

Not so literal,

Humble pie Jack

 

[Biblewriter]

Then be brave and write 1-2 lines on how Acts 2 uses Ps 16! For apparently you are interp-free! Go for it! No outside reasons! Just what it says!

I'm just laughing because you write pages of outside reasonings and think it is 'simply what it says' (in your line above).

Oversimplification is one of the Devil's favorite tricks.

I point out the details of what a passage actually says to disprove the reasonings that try to make it say something entirely different.

 

[ebedmelech]

If you had even bothered to read 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.

Once again this is what you think Biblewriter...and you think that because your mind is made up. To a great degree your mind is made up because of your eschatological view.

If you have to conclude Rrevelation was written in 67-69 AD what happens to your view? The same thing that happens if you have to conclude that Daniel's 70th week ended with Christ crucifixion...YOUR VIEW BECOMES UNTENABLE!

So once again there's more at stake...including the fact of being wrong...and our flesh many times won't allow us to think we're wrong until we're painted in a corner with facts.

Of course there's always the fact that we believe we're genuinely right too. I can't really say. However being a former dispensationalist I can say my position change NOT because I was convinced by anything other than the fact that as I read scripture I saw the problems...which led to me taking another look.

BTW...if you bothered to read what I said...I said I *doubt* you read Gentry...never said you didn't. You do understand what doubt means don't you?

 

[Biblewriter]

Seven ancient sources in agreement isn't a fact.

Yes, the only unquestionable facts we have about ancient times are what is written in the Bible, But aside from what the Bible itself says, there are very few "facts" of history that are backed up by that many ancient witnesses.

You keep saying "reliable" as if it means factual. How can they be reliable if they're wrong?

No, I am not conflating the two ideas. By "reliable," I mean a writer that was known to have normally written things that are accepted as factual. This, as opposed to the writer mentioned who was famous for saying so very many thing that were unquestionably incorrect, or the copyist I mentioned who made so very many errors in copying, some of which appeared to be intentional changes to the text.

Maybe they should of looked at what scripture said:

Isn't the woman Rome the city built on 7 hills, the 4th and 5th beast in Daniel, and the 1st beast in Rev 13?


The word "there" is the key to understanding what is being said. "There," in the city built on 7 hills, Rome, are kings, five are fallen etc.. That is one to eight kings being mentioned, and it's the 6th king that's existing presently, at the time of the Revelation. Roman history dictates the Roman "yr of 4 Emperors" in the yrs 68-69 ad, the time of rapid succession of emperors during the time of John. God's timeline.


By the way, this beast is also the 1st beast in Rev 13 with the 7 heads. The hills are his 7 heads, and he's the 8th king on the city/woman/harlot built on the 7 hills/heads.

You seem to be a reasonable man, let's see if you can accept the facts.

Without even a single exception, all the "internal evidence" you or any other "early dateist" have (or can) present is only evidence if your assumptions about the meaning is correct. But if you omit these rank assumptions, absolutely all of your "internal evidence" evaporates.

 

[Interplanner]

It would also be rank to treat Rev as distant future. It was written as though facing those things at the time expressed.

 

[shturt678]

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"

Don't forget the other 9 of the 10, after 70 A.D., that the early persecuted church also underwent - horrors, ie, the 42 months actually began at 70 A.D., eg, Lk.21:24 and runs through to the "1" Parousia. The 1,000 years began at the Cross of course.

Humble pie Jack

 

[Biblewriter]

It would also be rank to treat Rev as distant future. It was written as though facing those things at the time expressed.

And that assumption (and that is all it is, an assumption) is absolutely required to find even a scrap of "internal evidence" for an early date for the book.

 

[Interplanner]

So when the Levitical term from the LXX is used for the harlot, and her colors and the expression Mt 23 for killing all the prophets, it was just due to a monkey pecking away at a keyboard.

 

[Interplanner]

and all the reasons in ACSI's thread happening all at the same time... same monkey, BW?

 

[shturt678]

So when the Levitical term from the LXX is used for the harlot, and her colors and the expression Mt 23 for killing all the prophets, it was just due to a monkey pecking away at a keyboard.

Now I have to get an interpretation of "a monkey pecking away at a keyboard," ie, literal or signifed? Let me think about this one for awhile. Barrel of monkeys, monkey wrench in the gears, etc., I think it's literal?

Hope monkeys don't eat pumkin pie, Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

Yes, the only unquestionable facts we have about ancient times are what is written in the Bible, But aside from what the Bible itself says, there are very few "facts" of history that are backed up by that many ancient witnesses.

Don't be contradictory here Biblewriter! You CANNOT have it both ways! You want to quote the church fathers as fact....however what are they but believers (just as we are), trying to make sense of what IS written in the scriptures? So...THEY TOO...are open to having a flawed view of the things of AD 70.

What person do we have writing of AD 70 events the were eyewitnesses other than Josephus? Josephus was THERE...and a devout Jew! He saw the destruction of Jerusalem because he was captured in battle with the Romans! He was used to go in to convince the Jews to surrender!

Tacitus was a Roman senator and an historian (I know you know this). A man who is there in the Roman government where decision making was done!

What's my point? The fact that as I believe Revelation was written 67-69 AD...and John ends Revelation with a warning not to add to it...THERE IS NO MORE we can regard as scripture!!! So...the church fathers are not scripture...and even among them we have disagreement and interpretation of what they actually say and mean...JUST AS WE ARE and have been doing with scripture based on "individual theologies".

When you post the thoughts of church fathers THIS IS NOT FACT...but what YOU regard as fact.

I'll leave it there because we have the Patristics Forum, where many can see the various debates of what church fathers say and mean in their writings.

No, I am not conflating the two ideas. By "reliable," I mean a writer that was known to have normally written things that are accepted as factual. This, as opposed to the writer mentioned who was famous for saying so very many thing that were unquestionably incorrect, or the copyist I mentioned who made so very many errors in copying, some of which appeared to be intentional changes to the text.

Such as??? Would that not be subjective?

Without even a single exception, all the "internal evidence" you or any other "early dateist" have (or can) present is only evidence if your assumptions about the meaning is correct. But if you omit these rank assumptions, absolutely all of your "internal evidence" evaporates.

Oh!!!! But you are not assuming??? Answer this...was Jerusalem and the temple COMPLETELY DESTROYED in 70 AD and did the Jews go through a second diaspora?

Let me say this...why should we deny what Luke says (in his account) "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies...."?

Again...Josephus was THERE...and he says the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and cut off supplies into the city and allowed NO ONE to leave the city. They were effectively cut off!!!

Are we to disregard that?

This is in accord with Luke...and the way Luke explains it coincides with Matthew and Mark saying "When you see The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Let the reader understand)".

When you put those accounts together you get what it is. This too...is evidence!!!

Lastly you don't get one post done without mentioning Iranaeus Biblewriter! Why? Because like I said Iranaeus' ambiguous quote...is key to "late daters".

 

[precepts]

Without even a single exception, all the "internal evidence" you or any other "early dateist" have (or can) present is only evidence if your assumptions about the meaning is correct. But if you omit these rank assumptions, absolutely all of your "internal evidence" evaporates.

Which part of what I said do you consider to be assumptions? As far as I can tell they're all facts. Please point out these assumptions.

I would more consider your sources to be assumptions since there not facts. And if you had answered the questions I asked in the first place, you would of realized that the facts lies behind the questions, not just what's quoted in Rev 17.

 

[precepts]

Not so literal, ie, Revelation Jesus showed; signified its meaning; all that comprised it John saw. Rev.13: the first beast = the whole antichristian power in the whole world - - the second beast = the whole antichristian propaganda in the whole world, ie, deceptive activity or propaganda.

I provided scriptural proof, where's yours? The beasts in Dan 7 equals the beasts in Rev 13. That's a fact!

Not so literal,

Humble pie Jack

The Emperor has no clothes on! Open your eyes

 

[Biblewriter]

Don't be contradictory here Biblewriter! You CANNOT have it both ways! You want to quote the church fathers as fact....however what are they but believers (just as we are), trying to make sense of what IS written in the scriptures? So...THEY TOO...are open to having a flawed view of the things of AD 70.

No, I do not quote the church fathers as "fact." I simply point out that the overwhelming majority of the historical evidence points to the so-called "late date" for the Revelation.

What person do we have writing of AD 70 events the were eyewitnesses other than Josephus? Josephus was THERE...and a devout Jew! He saw the destruction of Jerusalem because he was captured in battle with the Romans! He was used to go in to convince the Jews to surrender!

Tacitus was a Roman senator and an historian (I know you know this). A man who is there in the Roman government where decision making was done!

What's my point? The fact that as I believe Revelation was written 67-69 AD...and John ends Revelation with a warning not to add to it...THERE IS NO MORE we can regard as scripture!!! So...the church fathers are not scripture...and even among them we have disagreement and interpretation of what they actually say and mean...JUST AS WE ARE and have been doing with scripture based on "individual theologies".

When you post the thoughts of church fathers THIS IS NOT FACT...but what YOU regard as fact.

I'll leave it there because we have the Patristics Forum, where many can see the various debates of what church fathers say and mean in their writings.

I am a little perplexed here. You condemn me for what you imagine is taking the statements of ancient Christians as "fact," and than you argue that the statements of an ancient Jew are "fact."

You are the one who is trying to have it both ways.

Such as??? Would that not be subjective?

Oh!!!! But you are not assuming??? Answer this...was Jerusalem and the temple COMPLETELY DESTROYED in 70 AD and did the Jews go through a second diaspora?

Let me say this...why should we deny what Luke says (in his account) "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies...."?

Again...Josephus was THERE...and he says the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and cut off supplies into the city and allowed NO ONE to leave the city. They were effectively cut off!!!

Are we to disregard that?

This is in accord with Luke...and the way Luke explains it coincides with Matthew and Mark saying "When you see The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Let the reader understand)".

When you put those accounts together you get what it is. This too...is evidence!!!

Lastly you don't get one post done without mentioning Iranaeus Biblewriter! Why? Because like I said Iranaeus' ambiguous quote...is key to "late daters".

I clearly proved. And I did not allege, I proved, that there were an absolute minimum of three other witnesses to the "late date" that were based on information that was neither given by Irenaeus nor given by any of the other three.

That is conclusive proof of an absolute minimum of four independent witnesses.

Rant all day, but you cannot change that undeniable fact.

 

[Biblewriter]

I provided scriptural proof, where's yours? The beasts in Dan 7 equals the beasts in Rev 13. That's a fact!

The actual fact is that you provided your interpretation of what the scriptures in question mean. And that is all you provided. This is not "scriptural proof."

 

[ebedmelech]

No, I do not quote the church fathers as "fact." I simply point out that the overwhelming majority of the historical evidence points to the so-called "late date" for the Revelation.

I show that to be total fiction...unless you just want to acknowledge only what you want to include...as you do!

I am a little perplexed here. You condemn me for what you imagine is taking the statements of ancient Christians as "fact," and than you argue that the statements of an ancient Jew are "fact."

You are the one who is trying to have it both ways.

No I didn't...read it again...that's why you're "perplexed". The point I'm making is why do you exclude Josephus and Tacitus??? That's the argument! You seem to be framing in only what YOU WANT to include as evidence. That's my argument. If you want to include the church fathers who wasn't there...HOW do you not include Tacitus (who is in the Roman Senate at the time AND during the Neronic persecution), and Josephus (who actually fought against the Romans until captured and then was there when Jerusalem was destroyed.

I clearly proved. And I did not allege, I proved, that there were an absolute minimum of three other witnesses to the "late date" that were based on information that was neither given by Irenaeus nor given by any of the other three.

No you didn't. You don't include John...and John says EXACTLY WHERE HE WAS in Revelation 1:9:
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

What does John mean saying He was "PARTAKER IN THE TRIBULATION"? Seeing He was there when Jesus gave the discourse...John knows what THE TRIBULATION is.

Now you can discount that if you want...I believe that John is indicating this IS the tribulation Christ spoke of. Why would he frame it that way saying "and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."

I hold that to be significant!!! You don't have to...but as John speaks the word to the seven chuches..he again recites tribulation:

Revelation 2:9, 10:
9 ‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Revelation 2:22:
22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.

These are internal evidence that the tribulation had begun however the great tribulation (which Jesus spoke of) had not yet started.

That is conclusive proof of an absolute minimum of four independent witnesses.

Rant all day, but you cannot change that undeniable fact.

These are what YOU SELECTED to prove, Again where is Josephus and Tacitus? Is it because they will throw a wrench into "your proof" they are not inculded...and what about John the apostle?

I don't have to "rant"...I don't need to do that...but I will challenge you...and YOU HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED!