Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Biblewriter]

I have revived this thread because it died after it got derailed and descended into personal attacks and counter-attacks.

The Dominian evidence for the date of the evidence is overwhelming because the score among the available historical witnesses is:

seven witness previous to the sixth century say one thing, including at least four who based what they said on information that did not come from any of the others, and only one of which is alleged to be an inconclusive statement.

On the other hand, there are a grand total of four witnesses previous to the sixth century that are alleged to say the opposite. Two of those four are challenged as being inconclusive statements, and both of the other two are famous for gross errors and misrepresentations.

This is historical evidence that simply cannot be refuted.

History plainly declares that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domitian.

So you are left with nothing but your alleged "internal evidence," which exists only if you assume that the subject of the Revelation was the events of the first century.

Please keep your comments on the subject.

But in the process of the un-Christlike series of personal remarks that killed this thread, one claim was made that needs to be addressed.

And you rely on non biblical modern day news reports.

This, unfortunately, is true in regard to many poorly taught futurists. But I will here quote from page 235 of my award winning book, "Keys to Bible Prophecy:"

"Certain men repeatedly make such statements as “this may be a fulfillment of” such-and-such a prophecy, or “this could mean” so-and-so. All such speculation is unprofitable and vain."

Again, on page 237, I said:

"Key Principles of Prophetic Interpretation

Principle #1: The key to the Bible is the Bible.

Except in rare questions such as the meaning of ancient words or the identity of ancient places or nations, we do not gain an understanding of the Bible from external information, we gain an understanding of external information from the Bible."

Although I was the one who wrote this, It was publicly read as an example of important truth by the leader of an international conference on Bible prophecy that took place on Toronto.

The fact that these ideas are endorsed by leaders of the dispensational movement can be seen in the following strongly worded endorsements:

Dr. Ed Hindson, Assistant Chancellor of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia and Dean of the prestigious Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy, says "Keys to Bible Prophecy" is one of the most interesting and insightful studies available today. This fascinating book is must reading for anyone interested in what the Bible says about the future.

Arno Froese, editor of the end times magazine "Midnight Call,' said of this book: "I find the material to be of exceptional value relating to instruction, correction, reproof, and simplicity. I can highly recommend your book to all Bible-believing Christians, particularly those who take careful notice of eschatology... I pray that this book will find wide distribution for the edification of the Church."

These statements are not given to sell books, or to build myself up, but to prove that the concepts I stated are accepted as important truth by main leaders of Dispensationalism.

That is, we do not "rely on non biblical modern day news reports." Our ideas are based on the Bible, not on newspapers.

(And as a side note, almost all of the concepts in my book were clearly spelled out in the 1800's, long before there was any news even approximately resembling modern events in the middle east. And many of them were clearly spelled out in the first few centuries of the church.)

 

[shturt678s]

I have revived this thread because it died after it got derailed and descended into personal attacks and counter-attacks.

The Dominian evidence for the date of the evidence is overwhelming because the score among the available historical witnesses is:


Please keep your comments on the subject.

But in the process of the un-Christlike series of personal remarks that killed this thread, one claim was made that needs to be addressed.



This, unfortunately, is true in regard to many poorly taught futurists. But I will here quote from page 235 of my award winning book, "Keys to Bible Prophecy:"

"Certain men repeatedly make such statements as “this may be a fulfillment of” such-and-such a prophecy, or “this could mean” so-and-so. All such speculation is unprofitable and vain."

Again, on page 237, I said:

"Key Principles of Prophetic Interpretation

Principle #1: The key to the Bible is the Bible.

No refute intended, ie, just another view: I do agree that we receive corroboration from external sources providing you do agree with this. However the Bible is just a translation, and even the Greek Texts are far from being perfect. My point is that we shouldn't base IIPet.1:20, 21 upon any Biblcial Text.

Except in rare questions such as the meaning of ancient words or the identity of ancient places or nations, we do not gain an understanding of the Bible from external information, we gain an understanding of external information from the Bible."

Although I was the one who wrote this, It was publicly read as an example of important truth by the leader of an international conference on Bible prophecy that took place on Toronto.

The fact that these ideas are endorsed by leaders of the dispensational movement can be seen in the following strongly worded endorsements:

These statements are not given to sell books, or to build myself up, but to prove that the concepts I stated are accepted as important truth by main leaders of Dispensationalism.

That is, we do not "rely on non biblical modern day news reports." Our ideas are based on the Bible, not on newspapers.

(And as a side note, almost all of the concepts in my book were clearly spelled out in the 1800's, long before there was any news even approximately resembling modern events in the middle east. And many of them were clearly spelled out in the first few centuries of the church.)

Revelation dated year 96 A.D. actual year of Domitian's death. :o

Your ol' friend Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

This will continue to be an issue...especially for futurism which is basically hinging this issue on Iranaeus' statement...which can easily be read two ways. Also when they try to say it is not based on Iranaeus statement EVERY TIME I hear a futurist try to prove Revelation is written in 95 AD Iranaeus' statement ALWAYS comes up.

The real stumper is why do they keep doing this despite the internal evidence of Revelation which shows it could not have been written is 95 AD.

Biblewriter says the best interpreter of the bible, is the bible...yet he ignores the internal evidence of Revelation.

I really am thankful to Ken Gentry for writing "Before Jerusalem Fell"...it pummels the idea that Revelation was written in 95 AD.

Once again...for those who are interested in looking into this, Ken Gentry's first publishing of "Before Jerusalem Fell" is a free e-book. You can download it and read for yourself at this Link:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

Biblewriter does some great writing (for his viewpoint)...however there's another side to the story!

 

[Biblewriter]

This will continue to be an issue...especially for futurism which is basically hinging this issue on Iranaeus' statement...which can easily be read two ways. Also when they try to say it is not based on Iranaeus statement EVERY TIME I hear a futurist try to prove Revelation is written in 95 AD Iranaeus' statement ALWAYS comes up.

The real stumper is why do they keep doing this despite the internal evidence of Revelation which shows it could not have been written is 95 AD.

Biblewriter says the best interpreter of the bible, is the bible...yet he ignores the internal evidence of Revelation.

I really am thankful to Ken Gentry for writing "Before Jerusalem Fell"...it pummels the idea that Revelation was written in 95 AD.

Once again...for those who are interested in looking into this, Ken Gentry's first publishing of "Before Jerusalem Fell" is a free e-book. You can download it and read for yourself at this Link:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

Biblewriter does some great writing (for his viewpoint)...however there's another side to the story!

You keep wanting to go back to Irenaeus, for you imagine his statements are inconclusive. But I have clearly demonstrated that there were an absolute minimum of three other ancient witnesses that dated the Revelation to the time of DFomatian, and who based their statements on information that did not come from Irenaeus.

I do not in any way ignore the internal evidence of Revelation. I point out that this internal evidence is only evidence if your basic proposition is correct. Without starting with your basic assumption, you can not provide even a splinter of internal evidence that the Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Every item of this alleged "internal evidence" is based on an assumption that the subject of the Revelation is the destruction that took place in AD 70.

If you think I am wrong about this, prove it! Show a single statement from the entire book of Revelation that conclusivey demonstrates it was written before Jerusalem fell. I have studied Gentry's work, and there is not even one item of "proof" that is not based on his preterist assumptions.

But this is reasoning in a circle, what is sometimes called elliptical logic. Any "proof" that is based on assumption that the conclusion is correct is not proof at all, but only an allegation.

 

[ebedmelech]

You keep wanting to go back to Irenaeus, for you imagine his statements are inconclusive. But I have clearly demonstrated that there were an absolute minimum of three other ancient witnesses that dated the Revelation to the time of DFomatian, and who based their statements on information that did not come from Irenaeus.

Like I said Biblewriter your conclusion is one. Gentry's conclusion is another. Your "ancient witnesses" simply parrot Iranaeus.

I do not in any way ignore the internal evidence of Revelation. I point out that this internal evidence is only evidence if your basic proposition is correct. Without starting with your basic assumption, you can not provide even a splinter of internal evidence that the Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Every item of this alleged "internal evidence" is based on an assumption that the subject of the Revelation is the destruction that took place in AD 70.

Really? That whole dissertation of your's is assumption...you proved nothing.

If I am wrong about this, prove it!

We've done this circle before Biblewriter. You're convinced one way (95AD), I'm convinced the other way (66AD).

I won't do this again with you...but I will provide others with an opportunity to weigh the evidence from other side.

Meantime...we can simply watch and wait going on with the Lord's business.

 

[shturt678s]

You keep wanting to go back to Irenaeus, for you imagine his statements are inconclusive. But I have clearly demonstrated that there were an absolute minimum of three other ancient witnesses that dated the Revelation to the time of DFomatian, and who based their statements on information that did not come from Irenaeus.

It's even Irenaeus (Against Heresies III, 4, 4) who states that John lived until the time of Trajan (98-117). Eusebius (Church History 5, 8) quotes Irenaeus to the effect that Revelation was seen almost in the memory of men then living, namely "toward the end of the reign of Domitian" (who died in 96).

I do not in any way ignore the internal evidence of Revelation. I point out that this internal evidence is only evidence if your basic proposition is correct. Without starting with your basic assumption, you can not provide even a splinter of internal evidence that the Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Every item of this alleged "internal evidence" is based on an assumption that the subject of the Revelation is the destruction that took place in AD 70.

If you think I am wrong about this, prove it! Show a single statement from the entire book of Revelation that conclusivey demonstrates it was written before Jerusalem fell. I have studied Gentry's work, and there is not even one item of "proof" that is not based on his preterist assumptions.

But this is reasoning in a circle, what is sometimes called elliptical logic. Any "proof" that is based on assumption that the conclusion is correct is not proof at all, but only an allegation.

Jack, that appreciates you both!

 

[ebedmelech]

Sometimes people won't be observant of facts...and here is a HUGE one:

God enters covenant with Israel in Exodus 19-24. They confirm the covenant in Exodus 24:1-8 as they agree to do "all the Lord has said". Moses then sprinkles the people with blood in confirmation of the covenant. After God calls Moses up and gives him instructions for the tabernacle. Israel was to carry the tabernacle everywhere with them. It was where God would dwell among them.

They get into the Promised Land, and God grants David desire to build "a house for the Lord", but God says Solomon would build it. When Solomon builds the temple the tabernacle is replaced and God move into the temple.

So what's the significance? The one thing that Israel had to look to as a indication of God dwelling with them has always been the tabernacle...and later under Solomon, the temple. The temple is the ONLY place God put his name.

"Fast forward to Revelation" - We know the temple is the one thing that is the object of worship of God to Israel THROUGHOUT THEIR EXISTENCE as God's people.

It is UNFATHOMABLE that John would write Revelation in 95 AD and not mention anything of the temple being destroyed. Yet he mentions nothing of it.

This is a huge problem for the "95 AD daters" of Revelation! They have NO ANSWER for this and it cannot be trivialized. John would have definitely mentioned such an event. THERE IS NO DOUBT!!!

 

[Biblewriter]

Sometimes people won't be observant of facts...and here is a HUGE one:

God enters covenant with Israel in Exodus 19-24. They confirm the covenant in Exodus 24:1-8 as they agree to do "all the Lord has said". Moses then sprinkles the people with blood in confirmation of the covenant. After God calls Moses up and gives him instructions for the tabernacle. Israel was to carry the tabernacle everywhere with them. It was where God would dwell among them.

They get into the Promised Land, and God grants David desire to build "a house for the Lord", but God says Solomon would build it. When Solomon builds the temple the tabernacle is replaced and God move into the temple.

So what's the significance? The one thing that Israel had to look to as a indication of God dwelling with them has always been the tabernacle...and later under Solomon, the temple. The temple is the ONLY place God put his name.

"Fast forward to Revelation" - We know the temple is the one thing that is the object of worship of God to Israel THROUGHOUT THEIR EXISTENCE as God's people.

It is UNFATHOMABLE that John would write Revelation in 95 AD and not mention anything of the temple being destroyed. Yet he mentions nothing of it.

This is a huge problem for the "95 AD daters" of Revelation! They have NO ANSWER for this and it cannot be trivialized. John would have definitely mentioned such an event. THERE IS NO DOUBT!!!

What is "UNFATHOMABLE" about not mentioning an event that had taken place around twenty-five years earlier? The OLNY reason you find this "UNFATHOMABLE" is because you simply assume that this was written about and to first century people. If you take away that rank assumption, the "UNFATHOMABLE" nature of this simply evaporates.

 

[ebedmelech]

What is "UNFATHOMABLE" about not mentioning an event that had taken place around twenty-five years earlier? The OLNY reason you find this "UNFATHOMABLE" is because you simply assume that this was written about and to first century people. If you take away that rank assumption, the "UNFATHOMABLE" nature of this simply evaporates.

Weak Biblewriter...just weak! John was Jew..NO WAY he leaves that out, nor God for that matter.

Revelation is about the climactic judgment of Jerusalem/Israel and removing any sign of God's covenant He had with Israel and the 1000 year reign of our Lord in Revelation 20. We reign with Him as ALL who come to Christ are His peculiar people.

Jesus pronounced Jerusalem and it's house (temple) desolate..and in 70 AD it happened.

No doubt you'll disagree...however your "eschatological paradigm" will fall apart as we go forward.

 

[shturt678s]

Sometimes people won't be observant of facts...and here is a HUGE one:

God enters covenant with Israel in Exodus 19-24. They confirm the covenant in Exodus 24:1-8 as they agree to do "all the Lord has said". Moses then sprinkles the people with blood in confirmation of the covenant. After God calls Moses up and gives him instructions for the tabernacle. Israel was to carry the tabernacle everywhere with them. It was where God would dwell among them.

They get into the Promised Land, and God grants David desire to build "a house for the Lord", but God says Solomon would build it. When Solomon builds the temple the tabernacle is replaced and God move into the temple.

So what's the significance? The one thing that Israel had to look to as a indication of God dwelling with them has always been the tabernacle...and later under Solomon, the temple. The temple is the ONLY place God put his name.

"Fast forward to Revelation" - We know the temple is the one thing that is the object of worship of God to Israel THROUGHOUT THEIR EXISTENCE as God's people.

It is UNFATHOMABLE that John would write Revelation in 95 AD and not mention anything of the temple being destroyed. Yet he mentions nothing of it.

Rev.11:2 the the Holy City" we know at once what was holy and belonged to God. It is now rejected by God ebed. The symbolism "the holy city they shall tead down," is taken from the prophecy of Jesus recorded in Lk.21:24. The start of the 42 months at 70 A.D. John mentioned all about it, Rev.11:2. :o

This is a huge problem for the "95 AD daters" of Revelation! They have NO ANSWER for this and it cannot be trivialized. John would have definitely mentioned such an event. THERE IS NO DOUBT!!!

Old Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

Rev.11:2 the the Holy City" we know at once what was holy and belonged to God. It is now rejected by God ebed. The symbolism "the holy city they shall tead down," is taken from the prophecy of Jesus recorded in Lk.21:24. The start of the 42 months at 70 A.D. John mentioned all about it, Rev.11:2. :o

Well absolutely Jack. My intent is not that the temple still had significance, but that John, knowing that significance, doesn't mention that the temple, nor Jerusalem for that matter had been destroyed. We know they have no significance after the cross, but John would mention such, if for no other reason than to speak to the Jews the significance of it's destruction.

Old Jack

It is! That Biblewriter would simply dismiss such shows he cannot deal with the significance of such an event not being mentioned by John.

 

[Biblewriter]

Weak Biblewriter...just weak! John was Jew..NO WAY he leaves that out, nor God for that matter.

Revelation is about the climactic judgment of Jerusalem/Israel and removing any sign of God's covenant He had with Israel and the 1000 year reign of our Lord in Revelation 20. We reign with Him as ALL who come to Christ are His peculiar people.

Jesus pronounced Jerusalem and it's house (temple) desolate..and in 70 AD it happened.

No doubt you'll disagree...however your "eschatological paradigm" will fall apart as we go forward.

The part of this I put in boldface is your rank assumption that is absolutely required to make even one of your arguments make any sense at all.

The part I put in italics is based on what God actually said, and is thus unquestionably correct.

 

[shturt678s]

Well absolutely Jack. My intent is not that the temple still had significance, but that John, knowing that significance, doesn't mention that the temple, nor Jerusalem for that matter had been destroyed. We know they have no significance after the cross, but John would mention such, if for no other reason than to speak to the Jews the significance of it's destruction.

It is! That Biblewriter would simply dismiss such shows he cannot deal with the significance of such an event not being mentioned by John.

No longer ieron, "Temple, ie, most of the N.T. passages render naon, "Sanctuary" where most looking for a "temple" to be physically built, yet it's a "Sanctuary," eg, IIThess.2:4 within the Temple complex.

Forget about the Temple, history, :o along with the Jews, and Israel that are not "in Christ." No "Temple" thus why should John mention it?

Jack, looking for the valid Sanctuary

btw don't mean to be rough on you, ie, have to go to store, now

 

[Biblewriter]

Well absolutely Jack. My intent is not that the temple still had significance, but that John, knowing that significance, doesn't mention that the temple, nor Jerusalem for that matter had been destroyed. We know they have no significance after the cross, but John would mention such, if for no other reason than to speak to the Jews the significance of it's destruction.

It is! That Biblewriter would simply dismiss such shows he cannot deal with the significance of such an event not being mentioned by John.

Without your unprovable assumption that the "Revelation is about the climactic judgment of Jerusalem/Israel and removing any sign of God's covenant He had with Israel," there is absolutely nothing here to "deal with."

I stress this again and again because absolutely all of your alleged "internal evidence" is based on this rank assumption.

 

[precepts]

It's even Irenaeus (Against Heresies III, 4, 4) who states that John lived until the time of Trajan (98-117). Eusebius (Church History 5, 8) quotes Irenaeus to the effect that Revelation was seen almost in the memory of men then living, namely "toward the end of the reign of Domitian" (who died in 96).

And just how old would John be to write Revelation in 95 ad if he was around Christ's age?

 

[ebedmelech]

The part of this I put in boldface is your rank assumption that is absolutely required to make even one of your arguments make any sense at all.

No more than your rank assumption that a 3rd temple will be built.

The part I put in italics is based on what God actually said, and is thus unquestionably correct.

I know. What is unquestionably incorrect is the idea that the 100 years are coming, when we have been in the thousand year reign since Christ took His seat at the Father's right hand.
________________________________

No longer ieron, "Temple, ie, most of the N.T. passages render naon, "Sanctuary" where most looking for a "temple" to be physically built, yet it's a "Sanctuary," eg, IIThess.2:4 within the Temple complex.

Forget about the Temple, history, :o along with the Jews, and Israel that are not "in Christ." No "Temple" thus why should John mention it?

Jack, looking for the valid Sanctuary

btw don't mean to be rough on you, ie, have to go to store, now

That would be if one buys into your theory of "ieron" and "naon". I don't. Also to forget the Jews is equally wrong to because we're assured in Romans 11 of an outpouring on them.

You can't get rough on me Jack, if you don't see what I see, I can't force you, nor you me. The only answer becomes to "maintain the unity of the faith".

It ain't personal...

 

[Biblewriter]

No more than your rank assumption that a 3rd temple will be built.

My "assumption" is that when the Bible explicitly says anything will happen, it means exactly what it says. (Allowing, of course, for the use of everyday figures of speech, which all writing uses.)This is backed up by the fact that every one of them that has already been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally, down to the tiniest detail. As an example, Daniel 11:5-32 is so precisely accurate that unbelievers claim its very accuracy is proof that it could not have been written until after it happened. And well over fifty prophecies about our Lord's first coming were fulfilled literally, including absolutely unbelievable details, such as that He would be born of a virgin.

Your "assumption" is that none of these prophecies actually means what it says, even though it is explicitly stated. You assume, without a shred of evidence, that these prophecies actually mean something entirely different from what they say. The fact that there is no Biblical basis for this assumption makes it a "rank assumption."

I know. What is unquestionably incorrect is the idea that the 100 years are coming, when we have been in the thousand year reign since Christ took His seat at the Father's right hand.

This is based on an interpretation of the meaning of a prophecy. But that interpretation directly contradicts many other scriptures.

So once again, my position is based on what the scriptures actually say, and your position is based on assumptions about what those words mean.

 

[shturt678s]

And just how old would John be to write Revelation in 95 ad if he was around Christ's age?

The testimony of Irenaeus goes directly back to John through Polycarp, Papias, and others of John's disciples. In his book on Heresies, III, 1, 1 he reports that John, the disciple of the Lord who lay upon his breast, published the fourth Gospel while he was in Ephesus of Asia Minor.

In III, 4, 4 he adds that the Ephesus Church was, indeed, founded by Paul, but that John lived there until the time of the emperor Trajan (98-117). this reference to Trajan is reapeated in II, 22, 25. Irenaeus seems to presuppose that John died a natural death, which accords with Tertullian, De anima, 50. dJohn must have been about a 100 when he passed on?

Old Jack

 

[precepts]

Originally Posted by Biblewriter:


seven witness previous to the sixth century say one thing, including at least four who based what they said on information that did not come from any of the others, and only one of which is alleged to be an inconclusive statement.

On the other hand, there are a grand total of four witnesses previous to the sixth century that are alleged to say the opposite. Two of those four are challenged as being inconclusive statements, and both of the other two are famous for gross errors and misrepresentations.
This is historical evidence that simply cannot be refuted.
History plainly declares that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domitian.

So you are left with nothing but your alleged "internal evidence," which exists only if you assume that the subject of the Revelation was the events of the first century.

Revelation isn't the only scriptural evidence confirming Revelation's context as first century event, Dan 7 also does. Read it.

And having several outside sources agreeing on 95 ad doesn't make it true.
I'm discovering evidence of fraud on the part of these so-called "early church fathers."

The entire so-called "Church" has been framed on their lies, and I'm working on gathering all their lies together to present factual evidence against them. Their claims of recieving their teachings and understanding from the Apostles themselves, handed down thru oral tradition, is false. A lie that some have accepted, and like they intended, believe no one can read scripture for themselves, they have to be instructed. What a clever ploy.

One of these lies, like I told you before, is Irenaeus' claim that the reason why the tribe of Dan's not listed in Revelation is because the Antichrist is from Dan, miscomprehending J-rmi-h 8:16 in his book Against Heresies (book V, chapter 30, paragraph 2).

 

[precepts]

The testimony of Irenaeus goes directly back to John through Polycarp, Papias, and others of John's disciples. In his book on Heresies, III, 1, 1 he reports that John, the disciple of the Lord who lay upon his breast, published the fourth Gospel while he was in Ephesus of Asia Minor.

In III, 4, 4 he adds that the Ephesus Church was, indeed, founded by Paul, but that John lived there until the time of the emperor Trajan (98-117). this reference to Trajan is reapeated in II, 22, 25. Irenaeus seems to presuppose that John died a natural death, which accords with Tertullian, De anima, 50. dJohn must have been about a 100 when he passed on?

Old Jack

Irenaeus is a liar. Irenaeus claims the Antichrist is from the tribe of Dan, the reason why the tribe of Dan isn't listed among the 144,000 saints in Revelation. He states this in Against Heresies book V, chapter 30, paragraph 2. He also claims the "Beast/Antichrist" is Satan in human form. He claims they are one entity, and not that the Beast is a separate entity that gets his power from Satan as Revelation states.

Most of these so-called "early church fathers' are liars. You're putting your trust on these sources not knowing the facts.

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.

He interprets this as meaning the Antichrist is from the tribe of Dan when it's really about Nebuchadnezzar during his invasion of Israel. There's nothing in the context of the verse that hints of the Antichrist.