Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Rev20]

!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.

What is so different about writing a century after the fact, or five centuries after the fact? Besides, Irenaeus is considered an unreliable source by many scholars. Your pretense that he is the next thing to an inspired author is amusing. Let's take a look at Mr. Reliable, Irenaeus, from the eyes of many scholars:

1) He was considered the first to write about it, a century after the fact!
2) He was a not a skilled Greek scholar.
3) His historical scholarship was unexceptional, in particular his chronological conception.
4) He was the Bishop of Lyon in France, far removed from Asia Minor and all the works and history of that location.​

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.

There is an indisputable tendency of early, as well as late writers to rely on a single, inconclusive statement by Irenaeus (or rely on those who rely on that statement) to determine a late date of the Revelation.

But there is no evidence whatsoever that Clement meant Domitian. The author of one of your supporting references (below) wrote:

"The link to Domitian is an arbitrary imposition by modern commentators based on the assumption of a great Domitianic persecution, which, as we shall see, is a highly dubious supposition." - D. Ragan Ewing.​

There are many historians that dispute the notion that Domitian was as murderous as Nero. Further, Nero's reign of terror focused primarily on Christians (42 months of terror); while Domitian's seem to have more of a political focus.

There is other evidence that dispute a late date. For example:

"... it is needful for us to discuss severally, as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name..." [Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol V, Fragments of Caius, Canon Muratorianus. T & T Clark, London, p.603]​

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."

Your last sentence is partly true, but your implication that John was banished only once is not fact, but opinion. Your previous sentence is simply your opinion based on conjecture. There are many others that see it much differently.

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.

No one condemned them. I hope I meet them in heaven. But why should authors avoid scrutiny simply because they are "ancient?" These were not eyewitness accounts; but are books that were written a century or more after the fact! Are you that forgiving of historical records that do not support your views, such as the aforementioned account in the Canon Muratorianus that places Paul's church epistles after John's? If true, that could only mean that John wrote the Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, since Paul, by all accounts was martyred prior to AD70.

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.

So, we should simply believe them all? That sounds fair; anytime two or more write opposing arguments, we mark the subject unresolvable. I can live with that.

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.

I, personally, am a stickler for accurate historical evidence. All the modern scholars I have cited provide extensive, detailed footnotes. Sometimes mistakes make it past their "proof-readers" (and "proof-thinkers"), but they are excellent scholars.

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.”

Anyone not familiar with the writings of Gentry would think, from your arguments, that Epiphanius is his only historical source. But his book is loaded with historical references, both for-and-against his beliefs, with Epiphanius a miniscule piece of the puzzle. I recommend everyone read his book, whether you agree with him, or not. You will see how many of the early writers fit into the puzzle. His earlier version (1989) is available free online:

Before Jerusalem Fell, by Kenneth L. Gentry

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

I agree with Philip Schaff, who was the editor of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity series. Are you aware that after decades of studying and editing the works of the early church fathers, Schaff changed his mind about the dating of the Revelation to an early date?

"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." [Philip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, Vol I. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1907, Preface to the Revised Edition]​

Which reminds me: I mis-typed a reference to Victorinus in a previous post. It should have read,

Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol XVIII vs. Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol XVIII​

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.

I don't think you really wanted to go there. The author, D. Ragan Ewing, was critical of others, as well. Speaking of Irenaeus' classic statement, the statement all futurists rely on, Ragan wrote:

"The quotation from Irenaeus that has become so important in the debate is generally translated as follows ... (the statement).​

This seems straightforward enough, but there are several problems here. First of all, there is a translational ambiguity. While our only extant complete text of the work containing this passage is in Latin, Eusebius preserves Irenaeus’ Greek. In the Latin, the ambiguity is removed, the scribe having made a decision on the matter, but the Greek deserves careful consideration... "​

The difficulty arises in Irenaeus’ statement, as translated above, “… that was seen …” The Greek text simply reads eJwravqh. The subject of the statement is simply subsumed in the verb, and there is therefore no grammatical indicator as to the referent; it could be the Apocalypse, or it could be John himself. In other words, the English could just as easily be, “… he was seen …” While it might seem initially odd to refer to a person as being “seen,” Hort acknowledges that Irenaeus has a general tendency to use oJravw of persons more commonly than visions or things. Moreover, the larger context speaks explicitly of “those who have seen John face to face”... This translation may in fact fit better with the logic of the passage as well.​

Nevertheless, there remains another problem with the Irenaean witness. To what extent are we to take as trustworthy Irenaeus’ historical claims? Caird (no doubt overstating the case), remarks that, “… second-century traditions about the apostles are demonstrably unreliable.” Whether or not this generalization is fair, in Irenaeus’ case there is legitimate reason for us to remain skeptical. In one place he portrays James the Apostle as the same person as the brother of the Lord, and in another, he astonishingly informs us that Jesus lived to be between forty and fifty years old! Lapses like these have understandably led to assessments such as Guthrie’s caution that Irenaeus’ historical method is “uncritical,” as well as Moffatt’s comment, “Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological.” Such being the case, should we really place the great confidence in this testimony that many scholars have? It may seem excessive to dwell so thoroughly on this single witness, but it must be understood that for many scholars, this piece of evidence has been the linchpin of the late-date case. Moreover, it is pivotal that we recognize clearly the questionable quality of this witness for one crucial reason: the so-called “unanimity” of the fathers’ witness on the matter apparently stems entirely from the Irenaean source.​

Now it should first be noted that the “unanimity” is nothing of the sort. As we shall see, there is much more diversity among the witnesses than is often admitted. But for now, suffice it to say that the allegedly numerous “testimonies” to the Domitianic date are in reality merely a chorus of voices echoing one testimony.​

Fascinating, isn't it? The article, titled, "The Identification of Babylon the Harlot," is excellent, and I highly recommend. Be certain to check out the many footnotes if you want to compile a list of other great authors.

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.

I have noticed that many futurists, in particular the dispensational types, get highly defensive (and, sometimes, offensive) at the mere mention of Ken Gentry's name. I, personally, think he is an excellent scholar. Of course, none are perfect, but God.

BTW, Gentry is not a preterist, but a partial-preterist. He is more the postmillennial type. We agree on most things, but not all.

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.

There are no facts in ancient historical documents, except those written by inspired hands. Is that enough proof of your conjectures, or do you want more? How about this conjecture from the first paragraph of your OP:

"… it is absolutely critical for a Preterist to insist that the Revelation was written before that time."​

That is 100% congecture. I don't know a single preterist who thinks it is absolutely critical, or even critical at all, that the Revelation was written in 60 AD, or 50 BC, or 100 AD. They are simply looking for the truth, and they go wherever the truth leads them. Ken Gentry, Jr. is a former dispensationalist. He couldn't find any truth there, so he, like many dispensationalists, looked for truth elsewhere.
.

 

[Rev20]

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!

Those are very good points; but I believe you left out the most important argument for an early date: the blood of the prophets. This is the Babylon the Great:

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." -- Rev 17:6​

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." -- Rev 18:24)​

"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." -- Rev 18:20​

This is Jerusalem:

"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" -- Luke 13:33-34​

". . . I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." -- Luke 11:49-51​

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:20-22​

Babylon and Jerusalem were responsible for the blood of the prophets, the holy apostles, and all (the righteous blood) slain upon the earth, which was avenged with the destruction and desolation of both. This is Jerusalem:

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." -- Luke 21:20​

"Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." -- Matt 23:38​

And Babylon:

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." -- Rev 17:16​

"And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate." -- Rev 18:19​

And, as you mentioned, both were harlots:

"For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great harlot, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." -- Rev 19:2​

"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,…Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them … And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy." -- Ezekiel 16:2, 35, 36, 38​

The only thing left to decide is how Jesus determined Babylon the Great to be responsible for the blood of the prophets, when Jesus also said that Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of the prophets. Of course, there is no alternative but to believe they are one and the same city.
.

 

[ebedmelech]

Those are very good points; but I believe you left out the most important argument for an early date: the blood of the prophets. This is the Babylon the Great:

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." -- Rev 17:6​

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." -- Rev 18:24)​

"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." -- Rev 18:20​

This is Jerusalem:

"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" -- Luke 13:33-34​

". . . I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." -- Luke 11:49-51​

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:20-22​

Babylon and Jerusalem were responsible for the blood of the prophets, the holy apostles, and all (the righteous blood) slain upon the earth, which was avenged with the destruction and desolation of both. This is Jerusalem:

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." -- Luke 21:20​

"Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." -- Matt 23:38​

And Babylon:

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." -- Rev 17:16​

"And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate." -- Rev 18:19​

And, as you mentioned, both were harlots:

"For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great harlot, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." -- Rev 19:2​

"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,…Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them … And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy." -- Ezekiel 16:2, 35, 36, 38​

The only thing left to decide is how Jesus determined Babylon the Great to be responsible for the blood of the prophets, when Jesus also said that Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of the prophets. Of course, there is no alternative but to believe they are one and the same city.
.

Biblewriter knows these are all points I have made with him and others...before, in various threads. I was being as brief as possible. Of recent speaking to this is my post #81 in the "TRUE or False" thread.

 

[Rev20]

Biblewriter knows these are all points I have made with him and others...before, in various threads. I was being as brief as possible. Of recent speaking to this is my post #81 in the "TRUE or False" thread.

Thanks for the thread ref. I smiled when I read this statement by you in #81:

"If you let scripture tell you...instead of you telling it...it's all there."

That is one of the first rules I was taught for exegesis. He called it, "Let the scripture interpret the scripture." It works.
.

 

[Biblewriter]

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!

It is not presupposition to believe that prophecies that explicitly say certain things are going to happen mean what they say. That is simply believing scripture. It is presupposition to assume they do not actually mean what they say.

 

[ebedmelech]

It is not presupposition to believe that prophecies that explicitly say certain things are going to happen mean what they say. That is simply believing scripture. It is presupposition to assume they do not actually mean what they say.

What the presupposition is is to ignore history, approach the prophecies with your preconcieved dispensational ideas...and force them onto the passage.

Don't forget...I came up in dispensationalism early as a Christian...and it was this type of interpreting of scripture that gave me pause.

 

[Johnnz]

What the presupposition is is to ignore history, approach the prophecies with your preconcieved dispensational ideas...and force them onto the passage.

Don't forget...I came up in dispensationalism early as a Christian...and it was this type of interpreting of scripture that gave me pause.

Same with me. But I came to see that Scripture actually presents a somewhat different account.

John
NZ

 

[Biblewriter]

What is so different about writing a century after the fact, or five centuries after the fact? Besides, Irenaeus is considered an unreliable source by many scholars. Your pretense that he is the next thing to an inspired author is amusing. Let's take a look at Mr. Reliable, Irenaeus, from the eyes of many scholars:

1) He was considered the first to write about it, a century after the fact!
2) He was a not a skilled Greek scholar.
3) His historical scholarship was unexceptional, in particular his chronological conception.
4) He was the Bishop of Lyon in France, far removed from Asia Minor and all the works and history of that location.

Your charge that I pretend that Irenaeus “is the next thing to an inspired author” is a flatly false accusation. I have never even so much as suggested any such idea. I have pointed out errors in the writings of Iernaeus, although not in this thread,

But your claims about Irenaeus are incorrect. Although he served in France, he was not a Frenchman. He is thought to have been born in Symrna, which was one of the principal Greek settlements in western Anatolia. This makes Greek his native tongue and renders the claim that he was “not a skilled Greek scholar” simple nonsense.

And regardless of where Irenaeus was actually born, he is known to have been trained in Symrna by the Greek speaking Polycarp. And Polycarp had at the very least a been close associate of Papias, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John. But both Tertullian and Jerome stated that Polycarp had himself been a disciple of the Apostle John.

These well known details about the life of Irenaeus show him to not only have been a native speaker of Greek, but the only ancient writer who said anything about the subject who even could have had any direct personal knowledge of when the Revelation was given. This makes him a much more reliable witness that someone who wrote centuries later.

There is an indisputable tendency of early, as well as late writers to rely on a single, inconclusive statement by Irenaeus (or rely on those who rely on that statement) to determine a late date of the Revelation.

You would do well to go back and actually read the threads you are emotionally responding to. For essentially all of your cavils have already been answered in this very thread. In regard to this deceptive comment, the truth is that, of the seven ancient witnesses that give a Domatian date, (six beside Irenaeus) only half of them (three) could have even possibly been basing their comments on the word of Irenaeus, because the other half of them all gave details that were not contained in the comments of Irenaeus, or of any other ancient writer we know about.

But there is no evidence whatsoever that Clement meant Domitian. The author of one of your supporting references (below) wrote:

"The link to Domitian is an arbitrary imposition by modern commentators based on the assumption of a great Domitianic persecution, which, as we shall see, is a highly dubious supposition." - D. Ragan Ewing.

There are many historians that dispute the notion that Domitian was as murderous as Nero. Further, Nero's reign of terror focused primarily on Christians (42 months of terror); while Domitian's seem to have more of a political focus.

This is begging the point at best. The fact that there is no proof that Clement meant Domatian is immaterial. Preterists falsely claim he clearly meant Nero. And there is no proof that this is correct either. I did not classify Clement as a witness for the Domatianic date, I only offered the proof that there is no proof that he was a witness for a Neronic date.

And if you had bothered to read post #6 in this thread, you would know that Domatian was referred to in terms similar to those used of Nero by Eusebius, by the unknown author of “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” by Lactantius, by Augustin, by Melito the Philosopher, and by the unknown author of “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John.”

There is other evidence that dispute a late date. For example:

"... it is needful for us to discuss severally, as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name..." [Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol V, Fragments of Caius, Canon Muratorianus. T & T Clark, London, p.603]

Again, if you had read the previous comments you would know about the Muratorian fragment. But since you did not bother, post number 5 in this thread pointed out that the famous Wescitt (of Wescott and Hort fame) said of a portion of this fragment that was inadvertantly repeated, that “in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, (p. 11b 29), two other omissions which destroy the sense completely (p. 12a 11 merito, I9 dicitur), one substitution equally destructive of the sense (p. 12a 9 decem et octo for ?), and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. 12a 6 scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from regard simply to the supposed form of words... In the sheet which precedes the Fragment on the Canon the same phenomena appear. There is in that also the same ignorance of construction: the same false criticism: the same confusion of letters and terminations. If we now apply the results gained from the examination of the context to the Fragment on the Canon, part of it at least can be restored with complete certainty; and part may be pronounced hopelessly corrupt. It has been shown that a fragment of thirty lines contains three serious omissions and at least two other changes of words wholly destructive of the sense, and it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long.”

Your last sentence is partly true, but your implication that John was banished only once is not fact, but opinion. Your previous sentence is simply your opinion based on conjecture. There are many others that see it much differently.

I did not say, or even imply, that John was banished only once. I only pointed out that Preterists have invented this concept without so much as a scrap of ancient evidence to back it up.

This is about as much answer as I can fit into one post. But it clearly demonstrates that your answers systematically misrepresent the facts. I make no judgment as to whether these misrepresentations are due to ignorance or carelessness. But it is my opinion that they are due to accepting the writings of men such as Gentry without critically examining them. I have critically reviewed his book, "Before Jerusalem Fell," and found many places where he used deceptive tactics, some of which I have pointed out here.

Don't just rely upon his footnotes. Look up the quotations he makes, and read them in their contexts, and you will see that what I have said about them is correct.

 

[Rev20]

Your charge that I pretend that Irenaeus “is the next thing to an inspired author” is a flatly false accusation. I have never even so much as suggested any such idea. I have pointed out errors in the writings of Iernaeus, although not in this thread,

But your claims about Irenaeus are incorrect. Although he served in France, he was not a Frenchman. He is thought to have been born in Symrna, which was one of the principal Greek settlements in western Anatolia. This makes Greek his native tongue and renders the claim that he was “not a skilled Greek scholar” simple nonsense.

And regardless of where Irenaeus was actually born, he is known to have been trained in Symrna by the Greek speaking Polycarp. And Polycarp had at the very least a been close associate of Papias, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John. But both Tertullian and Jerome stated that Polycarp had himself been a disciple of the Apostle John.

These well known details about the life of Irenaeus show him to not only have been a native speaker of Greek, but the only ancient writer who said anything about the subject who even could have had any direct personal knowledge of when the Revelation was given. This makes him a much more reliable witness that someone who wrote centuries later.

This is Schaff, who doesn't necessarily criticize his Greek, but his grammar and style, which is a sign of weak scholarship:

"After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix." [Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol I. CCEL, p.838]​

This is James Glasgow on Irenaeus' Greek, with a paraphrase of Raphael Kuhner on proper Greek:

"Kuhner says: "Proper names take the article when they have been mentioned before, or if it is intended to designate them as well known and distinguished." The latter case justifies the German writer in affirming that [Aofieriavov], if a noun, should have the article; that is, if Irenaeus wrote Greek accurately—an attainment in which he was confessedly deficient." [James Glasgow, The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1872, p.47; paraphrasing Raphael Kuhner, Grammar of the Greek Language. D Appleton & Co, New York, 1864, p.244]​

Glasgow claimed that Irenaeus personally admitted he was deficient in Greek. I have read other comment's about his Greek "scholarship", but I didn't keep notes. When I run into them again, I will add them to my notes and post them.

You would do well to go back and actually read the threads you are emotionally responding to. For essentially all of your cavils have already been answered in this very thread. In regard to this deceptive comment, the truth is that, of the seven ancient witnesses that give a Domatian date, (six beside Irenaeus) only half of them (three) could have even possibly been basing their comments on the word of Irenaeus, because the other half of them all gave details that were not contained in the comments of Irenaeus, or of any other ancient writer we know about.

I can see that you are emotionally involved in this issue. But it is not necessary for you to pretend that I am. When you say "all your cavils have already been answered in this thread," that is your opinion. Even now you are presenting those "details" added by post-Irenaeus authors are "facts". That is wishful thinking, but not scholarship. Those "facts" could just as easily have been embellishments, which is a common by those with agendas. The fact that someone could write something previously undocumented, more than a hundred years after the fact, and not provide a source, does not promote confidence in their scholarship, no matter how it is spun.

This is begging the point at best. The fact that there is no proof that Clement meant Domatian is immaterial. Preterists falsely claim he clearly meant Nero. And there is no proof that this is correct either. I did not classify Clement as a witness for the Domatianic date, I only offered the proof that there is no proof that he was a witness for a Neronic date. And if you had bothered to read post #6 in this thread, you would know that Domatian was referred to in terms similar to those used of Nero by Eusebius, by the unknown author of “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” by Lactantius, by Augustin, by Melito the Philosopher, and by the unknown author of “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John.”

I don't recall reading that about Preterists and their claims about Clement (or the others), but I am not completely discounting what you say. I can, however, understand why some might think that way, because Clement, for certain, left us a Preterist/Partial-Preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI, p.329]​

We have still to add to our chronology the following,— I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him. Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI, pp.333-334]​

Note that Clement claims Nero was the dreaded "Antichrist of the Futurist". LOL!

I highly recommend everyone read Ken Gentry's analysis of Clement of Alexandria in his book, Before Jerusalem Fell, free for download at the link.

I have read some who argue that Irenaeus might have meant Nero, in the sense of his name being Marcus Domitius Ahenobarbus, which I personally believe is grasping at straws, considering the rest of his authorship. But you seem to be implying that all Preterists (including, by what might be perceived as a glittering generality, partial-preterists like myself,) make those claims, which is not true. Preterists are all over the place. Some even give credence to Irenaeus, which I do, generally.

The only thing that seems to tie Preterists together is their interpretation of "this generation" as the generation of Christ and his disciples. From there, it is anybody's guess. For example, I can count on two hands the partial preterists that believe the way I do. Therefore, I would prefer that, instead of generalities, you use specific names and quotes.

Again, if you had read the previous comments you would know about the Muratorian fragment. But since you did not bother, post number 5 in this thread pointed out that the famous Wescitt (of Wescott and Hort fame) said of a portion of this fragment that was inadvertantly repeated, that “in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, (p. 11b 29), two other omissions which destroy the sense completely (p. 12a 11 merito, I9 dicitur), one substitution equally destructive of the sense (p. 12a 9 decem et octo for ?), and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. 12a 6 scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from regard simply to the supposed form of words... In the sheet which precedes the Fragment on the Canon the same phenomena appear. There is in that also the same ignorance of construction: the same false criticism: the same confusion of letters and terminations. If we now apply the results gained from the examination of the context to the Fragment on the Canon, part of it at least can be restored with complete certainty; and part may be pronounced hopelessly corrupt. It has been shown that a fragment of thirty lines contains three serious omissions and at least two other changes of words wholly destructive of the sense, and it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long.”

I read it. Did you mention this paragraph by Westcott?

"On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source from which it was taken." [Wescott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. MacMillan and Co, London, 1866, p.475]​

And this by Tregelles?

"However great may be the errors of translator or copyists, and however obscure in consequence some parts of the Muratorian Fragment may be, the general testimony which it bears to the Canon of the New Testament is certain and clear . . . The author acknowledges four Gospels, the third and fourth of which are specified to be those of Luke and John. The first Epistle of John; the Acts as written by Luke. Epistles of Paul to seven Churches, enumerated by name, to two of which he wrote twice; and, in connection with these seven, the Apocalypse of John is incidentally mentioned. The four pastoral Epistles of the Apostle Paul; the Epistle of Jude, and two (other apparently) Epistles of John previously named. Thus all the books which we receive as belonging to the Canon of the New Testament are distinctly recognized, except the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, and the two of Peter." [Samuel P Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament. Clarendon Press, 1867, p.29]​

There are problems with all historical writings and translations. But I believe my question (a few paragraphs later) was:

"Are you that forgiving of historical records that do not support your views, such as the aforementioned account in the Canon Muratorianus that places Paul's church epistles after John's? If true, that could only mean that John wrote the Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, since Paul, by all accounts was martyred prior to AD70."​

Obviously, you are not so forgiving.

I did not say, or even imply, that John was banished only once. I only pointed out that Preterists have invented this concept without so much as a scrap of ancient evidence to back it up.

One of your references, "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" reads in part:

"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]​

That is their "scrap of ancient evidence" you refuse to recognize. I know you have disputed the interpretation that John's report, presented to Domitius, was the Revelation, by redirecting the conversation to the book of Daniel. But the book of Daniel was a well-known document at that time, and not something one would think the Roman leadership would be alarmed about. Frankly, I believe you are grasping at straws. A better argument for you in the future might be towards presenting the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" as heretical.

This is about as much answer as I can fit into one post. But it clearly demonstrates that your answers systematically misrepresent the facts. I make no judgment as to whether these misrepresentations are due to ignorance or carelessness. But it is my opinion that they are due to accepting the writings of men such as Gentry without critically examining them. I have critically reviewed his book, "Before Jerusalem Fell," and found many places where he used deceptive tactics, some of which I have pointed out here. Don't just rely upon his footnotes. Look up the quotations he makes, and read them in their contexts, and you will see that what I have said about them is correct.

I generally do. But thanks for the advice; and you may want to take your own advice.

 

[Biblewriter]

This is Schaff, who doesn't necessarily criticize his Greek, but his grammar and style, which is a sign of weak scholarship:

"After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix." [Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol I. CCEL, p.838]​

This is James Glasgow on Irenaeus' Greek, with a paraphrase of Raphael Kuhner on proper Greek:

"Kuhner says: "Proper names take the article when they have been mentioned before, or if it is intended to designate them as well known and distinguished." The latter case justifies the German writer in affirming that [Aofieriavov], if a noun, should have the article; that is, if Irenaeus wrote Greek accurately—an attainment in which he was confessedly deficient." [James Glasgow, The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1872, p.47; paraphrasing Raphael Kuhner, Grammar of the Greek Language. D Appleton & Co, New York, 1864, p.244]​

Glasgow claimed that Irenaeus personally admitted he was deficient in Greek. I have read other comment's about his Greek "scholarship", but I didn't keep notes. When I run into them again, I will add them to my notes and post them.



I can see that you are emotionally involved in this issue. But it is not necessary for you to pretend that I am. When you say "all your cavils have already been answered in this thread," that is your opinion. Even now you are presenting those "details" added by post-Irenaeus authors are "facts". That is wishful thinking, but not scholarship. Those "facts" could just as easily have been embellishments, which is a common by those with agendas. The fact that someone could write something previously undocumented, more than a hundred years after the fact, and not provide a source, does not promote confidence in their scholarship, no matter how it is spun.



I don't recall reading that about Preterists and their claims about Clement (or the others), but I am not completely discounting what you say. I can, however, understand why some might think that way, because Clement, for certain, left us a Preterist/Partial-Preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI, p.329]​

We have still to add to our chronology the following,— I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him. Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI, pp.333-334]​

Note that Clement claims Nero was the dreaded "Antichrist of the Futurist". LOL!

I highly recommend everyone read Ken Gentry's analysis of Clement of Alexandria in his book, Before Jerusalem Fell, free for download at the link.

I have read some who argue that Irenaeus might have meant Nero, in the sense of his name being Marcus Domitius Ahenobarbus, which I personally believe is grasping at straws, considering the rest of his authorship. But you seem to be implying that all Preterists (including, by what might be perceived as a glittering generality, partial-preterists like myself,) make those claims, which is not true. Preterists are all over the place. Some even give credence to Irenaeus, which I do, generally.

The only thing that seems to tie Preterists together is their interpretation of "this generation" as the generation of Christ and his disciples. From there, it is anybody's guess. For example, I can count on two hands the partial preterists that believe the way I do. Therefore, I would prefer that, instead of generalities, you use specific names and quotes.



I read it. Did you mention this paragraph by Westcott?

"On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source from which it was taken." [Wescott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. MacMillan and Co, London, 1866, p.475]​

And this by Tregelles?

"However great may be the errors of translator or copyists, and however obscure in consequence some parts of the Muratorian Fragment may be, the general testimony which it bears to the Canon of the New Testament is certain and clear . . . The author acknowledges four Gospels, the third and fourth of which are specified to be those of Luke and John. The first Epistle of John; the Acts as written by Luke. Epistles of Paul to seven Churches, enumerated by name, to two of which he wrote twice; and, in connection with these seven, the Apocalypse of John is incidentally mentioned. The four pastoral Epistles of the Apostle Paul; the Epistle of Jude, and two (other apparently) Epistles of John previously named. Thus all the books which we receive as belonging to the Canon of the New Testament are distinctly recognized, except the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, and the two of Peter." [Samuel P Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament. Clarendon Press, 1867, p.29]​

There are problems with all historical writings and translations. But I believe my question (a few paragraphs later) was:

"Are you that forgiving of historical records that do not support your views, such as the aforementioned account in the Canon Muratorianus that places Paul's church epistles after John's? If true, that could only mean that John wrote the Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, since Paul, by all accounts was martyred prior to AD70."​

Obviously, you are not so forgiving.



One of your references, "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" reads in part:

"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]​

That is their "scrap of ancient evidence" you refuse to recognize. I know you have disputed the interpretation that John's report, presented to Domitius, was the Revelation, by redirecting the conversation to the book of Daniel. But the book of Daniel was a well-known document at that time, and not something one would think the Roman leadership would be alarmed about. Frankly, I believe you are grasping at straws. A better argument for you in the future might be towards presenting the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" as heretical.



I generally do. But thanks for the advice; and you may want to take your own advice.

The only parts of this that I will even respond to are, first:

In speaking of the seventieth week, Clement was speaking about the book of Daniel, not about the Revelation, And he did not make Nero out to be the Antichrist. He made Nero out to be the Roman leader prophesied in Daniel 9:27. The fact that many others have assumed that this prophesied Roman leader does not mean that Cement made any such assumption.

Second, Your comment about avoiding part of what Wescott said. I did not avoid it in my Opening Statement, but included it in the quotation, I was shortening it here to keep this post short enough to be postable.

The reason I cited the details Wescott gave was to rove that the man who made this document made, in the very same manuscript, many notable errors. So the fact that he called Paul a successor of John could very well been just another such errors. Wescott said of the portion he accidentally copied, "in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, two other omissions which destroy the sense completely one substitution equally destructive of the sense and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alteration." And after commenting again on this, he added, "it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long.” So the fact that he called Paul a successor of John could very well been just another such errors.

Since this is one of the only two early Christian writers who made unequivocal statements dating the Revelation before the time of Domatian, and the only other one was so error prone that even Preterists websites admit his testimony is not convincing, I maintain my stance that the is not even one unequivocal statement of a date for the Revelation previous to Domatian that from a writer who is considered reliable and who wrote before the sixth century.

And third, your ridiculous claim that an ancient writer cannot be relied upon if he did not cite his source. The citing of a source is a modern practice that simply was not normally done in ancient times. Very few ancient writers ever cited their sources. So you are simply making up excuses for ignoring every unequivocal statement from a reliable source from before the beginning of the dark ages.

 

[Interplanner]

BW wrote:
The citing of a source is a modern practice that simply was not normally done in ancient times.

Is that why you don't seem to get how the NT uses the OT?

 

[Rev20]

The only parts of this that I will even respond to are,

Should I feel slighted or privileged?
.

first: In speaking of the seventieth week, Clement was speaking about the book of Daniel, not about the Revelation, And he did not make Nero out to be the Antichrist. He made Nero out to be the Roman leader prophesied in Daniel 9:27. The fact that many others have assumed that this prophesied Roman leader does not mean that Cement made any such assumption.

I must have misunderstood Scofield. This is his footnote for the word "abominations" in 9:27,

"(Cf) Mt 24:15. The expression occurs three times in Daniel. In Dan 9:27 12:11 the reference is to the "Beast," "man of sin"; 2Th 2:3,4 and is identical with Mt 24:15. In Dan 11:31 the reference is to the act of Antiochus Epiphanes, the prototype of the man of sin, who sacrificed a sow upon the altar, and entered the holy of holies." [C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible. Oxford University Press, 1909, p.915]​

These are the parts by Clement that seemed to indicate that Nero fulfilled what Scofield claimed is yet to be fulfilled:

". . . as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI]​

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI]​

It certainly appears that Clement was claiming that Nero fulfilled, what Scofield claimed is yet to be fulfilled. And it certainly appears that Scofield claimed a future fulfillment.

There is more on 9:27 by Scofield in his 9:24 note:

"The "he" of Dan 9:27 is the "prince that shall come" of Dan 9:26, whose people (Rome) destroyed the temple, A.D. 70. He is the same with the "little horn" of chapter 7. He will covenant with the Jews to restore their temple sacrifices for one week (seven years), but in the middle of that time he will break the covenant and fulfil Dan 12:11 2Th 2:3,4." [C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible. Oxford University Press, 1909, p.915]​

This is his 2 Thess 2:3,4 reference:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." -- 2Th 2:3-4​

I believe you have misinterpreted Clement.
.

Second, Your comment about avoiding part of what Wescott said. I did not avoid it in my Opening Statement, but included it in the quotation, I was shortening it here to keep this post short enough to be postable.

I don't believe that I claimed you avoided it. I simply asked, "Did you mention this paragraph by Westcott?" And then I included the paragraph. Whether you had previously mentioned, or not, I was going to include it. But I did not accuse you of avoiding it.
.

The reason I cited the details Wescott gave was to rove that the man who made this document made, in the very same manuscript, many notable errors. So the fact that he called Paul a successor of John could very well been just another such errors. Wescott said of the portion he accidentally copied, "in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, two other omissions which destroy the sense completely one substitution equally destructive of the sense and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alteration." And after commenting again on this, he added, "it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long.” So the fact that he called Paul a successor of John could very well been just another such errors.

Yes, it could have been. But to dismiss it outright, while excusing others equally questionable, is not a sign of unbiased scholarship.
.

Since this is one of the only two early Christian writers who made unequivocal statements dating the Revelation before the time of Domatian, and the only other one was so error prone that even Preterists websites admit his testimony is not convincing, I maintain my stance that the is not even one unequivocal statement of a date for the Revelation previous to Domatian that from a writer who is considered reliable and who wrote before the sixth century.

That is the general consensus, which includes a consensus that everyone that followed jumped on Irenaeus' bandwagon.

How did you interpret this statement by Clement?

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." [Miscellanies 7:17.]​

It certainly appears that Clement is claiming that the ministry of all the apostles (which includes John) ended with Nero, which would be about AD 68.
.

And third, your ridiculous claim that an ancient writer cannot be relied upon if he did not cite his source. The citing of a source is a modern practice that simply was not normally done in ancient times. Very few ancient writers ever cited their sources. So you are simply making up excuses for ignoring every unequivocal statement from a reliable source from before the beginning of the dark ages.

This seems to be an emotional reponse to my statement on Victorinus. I am not the only one who questioned his scholarship. This statement by Firmin Abauzit includes a statement by Jerome:

Sect. 63. I turn then to the page which the index marks. What first exhibits itself is a preface of St. Jerom, in which he is in a bad humour with one of his friends, who had obliged him to go in search of a book, so very inconsiderable – a bad omen. Perhaps the chagreen of being interrupted in his studies might be intermingled with his displeasure against this comment. Let us therefore proceed, “Victorinus, says Jerom, had no learning, but he was very desirous to have some. He has not even the ability to express his own ideas.” Unhappily the perusal of the commentary confirms but too well Jerom's judgment. One does not know if it is Victorinus who comments the Apocalypse, or if it is the Apocalypse which comments Victorinus. Of preliminary dissertations we must be silent. He scarce names the apostle St. John in the body of the work. He appears not to have suspected that there were other persons of the same name, so far he dealt honestly. In fine, it was the destiny of the first commentator of the Apocalypse, to have the reputation of a Divine who had only attained mediocrity [ E. Harwood, Miscellanies on M. Abauzit. T. Becket, London, 1774, p.328]​

Again, I believe Victorinus' commentary was based on the statement by Irenaeus, which he then embellished with unbelievable details.
.

 

[Biblewriter]

Should I feel slighted or privileged?
.



I must have misunderstood Scofield. This is his footnote for the word "abominations" in 9:27,

"(Cf) Mt 24:15. The expression occurs three times in Daniel. In Dan 9:27 12:11 the reference is to the "Beast," "man of sin"; 2Th 2:3,4 and is identical with Mt 24:15. In Dan 11:31 the reference is to the act of Antiochus Epiphanes, the prototype of the man of sin, who sacrificed a sow upon the altar, and entered the holy of holies." [C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible. Oxford University Press, 1909, p.915]​

These are the parts by Clement that seemed to indicate that Nero fulfilled what Scofield claimed is yet to be fulfilled:

". . . as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI]​

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius." [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, ch.XXI]​

It certainly appears that Clement was claiming that Nero fulfilled, what Scofield claimed is yet to be fulfilled. And it certainly appears that Scofield claimed a future fulfillment.

There is more on 9:27 by Scofield in his 9:24 note:

"The "he" of Dan 9:27 is the "prince that shall come" of Dan 9:26, whose people (Rome) destroyed the temple, A.D. 70. He is the same with the "little horn" of chapter 7. He will covenant with the Jews to restore their temple sacrifices for one week (seven years), but in the middle of that time he will break the covenant and fulfil Dan 12:11 2Th 2:3,4." [C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible. Oxford University Press, 1909, p.915]​

This is his 2 Thess 2:3,4 reference:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." -- 2Th 2:3-4​

I believe you have misinterpreted Clement. .

The fact remains, that Clement said absolutely nothing about any of the other prophecies you mentionned. Ans he most certainly did not say that this Roman ruler was either "the man of Sin," The Antichrist," or any similar language. He only said that Nero was the prophesied Roman leader.

The unquestionable fact that many others have assumed that this is the same individual mentioned in the Antichrist prophecies dies not mean that Clement assumed that. The fact is, not even one nineteenth century Dispensationalist taught that this Roman leader was the Antichrist, and I do not. As there are many who see this Roman leader as someone different from the Antichrist, it is a baseless assumption that Clement assumed he was.

Yes, it could have been. But to dismiss it outright, while excusing others equally questionable, is not a sign of unbiased scholarship.

There is a great deal of difference between making a few errors in a very large work, And making thirty errors in thirty lines.

That is the general consensus, which includes a consensus that everyone that followed jumped on Irenaeus' bandwagon.

The entire point of this thread was to conclusively prove that this consensus is simply incorrect. I have demonstrated that there were an absolute minimum of three other writers that most certainly were not depending on Irenaeus, nor were they depending on each other.

How did you interpret this statement by Clement?

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." [Miscellanies 7:17.]​

It certainly appears that Clement is claiming that the ministry of all the apostles (which includes John) ended with Nero, which would be about AD 68.

This indeed could have been what he meant. But the Revelation is different from all the other Apostolic writings. For John was not expressing opinions, but only reporting the vision he had seen and had been commanded to write down. Thus, Clement could have been thinking that John was onky acting as a sort of secretary.

This seems to be an emotional reponse to my statement on Victorinus. I am not the only one who questioned his scholarship. This statement by Firmin Abauzit includes a statement by Jerome:

Sect. 63. I turn then to the page which the index marks. What first exhibits itself is a preface of St. Jerom, in which he is in a bad humour with one of his friends, who had obliged him to go in search of a book, so very inconsiderable – a bad omen. Perhaps the chagreen of being interrupted in his studies might be intermingled with his displeasure against this comment. Let us therefore proceed, “Victorinus, says Jerom, had no learning, but he was very desirous to have some. He has not even the ability to express his own ideas.” Unhappily the perusal of the commentary confirms but too well Jerom's judgment. One does not know if it is Victorinus who comments the Apocalypse, or if it is the Apocalypse which comments Victorinus. Of preliminary dissertations we must be silent. He scarce names the apostle St. John in the body of the work. He appears not to have suspected that there were other persons of the same name, so far he dealt honestly. In fine, it was the destiny of the first commentator of the Apocalypse, to have the reputation of a Divine who had only attained mediocrity [ E. Harwood, Miscellanies on M. Abauzit. T. Becket, London, 1774, p.328]​

Again, I believe Victorinus' commentary was based on the statement by Irenaeus, which he then embellished with unbelievable details.
.

I said nothing about the scholarship of Victornius. I nearly choked on much of what he wrote. I only commented on his clear statements of facts about the giving of the revelation that had been reported ny no one else whose writings have survived.

You Keep accusing me if being emotionally invested in this question. But you are the one who keeps responding emotionally. An eample of this is your absolutely groundless conclusion that Victornius was inky deoending on Irenaeus and embellished the account. So you are claiming that he simply made up these details. But you do not have even the slightest hint of a scrap of evidence to back up this claim.

 

[Rev20]

The fact remains, that Clement said absolutely nothing about any of the other prophecies you mentionned. Ans he most certainly did not say that this Roman ruler was either "the man of Sin," The Antichrist," or any similar language. He only said that Nero was the prophesied Roman leader.

The unquestionable fact that many others have assumed that this is the same individual mentioned in the Antichrist prophecies dies not mean that Clement assumed that. The fact is, not even one nineteenth century Dispensationalist taught that this Roman leader was the Antichrist, and I do not. As there are many who see this Roman leader as someone different from the Antichrist, it is a baseless assumption that Clement assumed he was.

That wasn't the point. The point was that Clement said certain prophecies were fulfilled prior to AD70, that Scofield said was still in our future! That can't be that difficult to grasp?

The entire point of this thread was to conclusively prove that this consensus is simply incorrect. I have demonstrated that there were an absolute minimum of three other writers that most certainly were not depending on Irenaeus, nor were they depending on each other.

Well, you didn't prove it.

This indeed could have been what he meant. But the Revelation is different from all the other Apostolic writings. For John was not expressing opinions, but only reporting the vision he had seen and had been commanded to write down. Thus, Clement could have been thinking that John was onky acting as a sort of secretary.

LOL! Okay. We will assume that Clement sorted John's works by 1) prophecy, and 2) epistles and gospel.

I said nothing about the scholarship of Victornius. I nearly choked on much of what he wrote. I only commented on his clear statements of facts about the giving of the revelation that had been reported ny no one else whose writings have survived.

You still don't get it.

You Keep accusing me if being emotionally invested in this question. But you are the one who keeps responding emotionally. An eample of this is your absolutely groundless conclusion that Victornius was inky deoending on Irenaeus and embellished the account. So you are claiming that he simply made up these details. But you do not have even the slightest hint of a scrap of evidence to back up this claim.

That is correct. I have not one shred of evidence, one way or the other, on this matter. Neither did Victorinus. He was not an eyewitness to anything; and he wrote about two centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was a century after Irenaeus. And after seventeen centuries of digging up ancient fragments, there is still not one shred of evidence that he had any new information. I don't understand why you keep insisting that he did! If you have the evidence, show it!
.

 

[Johnnz]

If scholars are divided about the date of revelation I'm pretty sure us lesser mortals here will not produce the definitive view that will settle the matter.

As interesting as the matter is, I am more concerned about actually understanding the books' message as it applies to us (and me) today.

John
NZ

 

[Bible2]

Johnnz said in post 475:

If scholars are divided about the date of revelation I'm pretty sure us lesser mortals here will not produce the definitive view that will settle the matter.

As interesting as the matter is, I am more concerned about actually understanding the books' message as it applies to us (and me) today.

Good point.

Just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 has always been relevant to Christians despite the fact that it has never been fulfilled, but will be fulfilled almost entirely literally in our future, so the highly-detailed and chronological events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18, and the subsequent millennium and other events in Revelation chapters 20 to 22, have always been relevant to Christians despite the fact that they have never been fulfilled, but will be fulfilled almost entirely literally in our future.

To put it another way, the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, before Jesus returns immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), should be relevant to every Christian regardless of whether or not he thinks he will still be alive to go through it, just as, for example, the past fulfillment of Genesis chapters 1 to 11 should be relevant to every Christian regardless of him not being alive at that time to experience it. For all scripture regarding all times is profitable to all Christians in all times (2 Timothy 3:16).

Also, the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 should be especially relevant to every Christian alive today. For the main reason that the Bible gives clear warning ahead of time about everything that Christians alive at the time of the tribulation will have to face (Mark 13:23, Revelation chapters 6 to 18, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 22:16), before Jesus returns immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), is so that Christians can be better prepared mentally not to be blindsided (1 Peter 4:12-13) or deceived by anything that's coming (Matthew 24:4-5,23-25, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), and so they can be better prepared mentally to endure the future tribulation with patience and faith to the end (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6), and not commit apostasy during the tribulation (Isaiah 8:21-22, Matthew 24:9-13, Matthew 13:21), to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12).

--

Preterism (whether full or partial), as well as historicism (in its various modern forms), and pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, could all be animated by the same spirit of fear: that the church alive today throughout the world would otherwise have to physically suffer through the future, almost-entirely literal, worldwide tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. For these 5 views of preterism, historicism, pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, in their different ways, each gives a mistaken assurance to the church alive today that it won't have to physically suffer through that tribulation.

Preterism says that the tribulation happened in 70 AD (or a few years before and including 70 AD). Historicism says that it happened over a long period in history (e.g. during the rise and height of the RCC's power in Europe during the Middle Ages and after, or during the rise and spread of Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere during the Middle Ages and after). Pre-tribulation rapturism says that Jesus will return and rapture the church into the 3rd heaven before the tribulation begins. Symbolicism says that the tribulation is only symbolic of theological themes which those in the church have always had to struggle with (e.g. Matthew 6:24), and is symbolic of only-local physical persecutions which some in the church have always had to face, and are still facing today in some places. And spiritualism says that the tribulation is only spiritual events which go on only within the hearts of individuals.

But when the almost-entirely literal, worldwide tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 begins in our future, the shaky doctrinal wall which (in their different ways) these 5 views have each tried to build up between the church and the tribulation, will be completely shattered (Ezekiel 13:10-12) as the church worldwide begins to physically suffer through the tribulation (Matthew 24:9-31, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6). These 5 views may have left some in the church unprepared mentally to undergo this physical suffering, to where these 5 views could even contribute to some in the church ultimately losing their salvation because of committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12) during the tribulation, when they become "offended" that God is making them and their little ones physically suffer through it (Matthew 24:9-12, Matthew 13:21, Isaiah 8:21-22, Luke 8:13).

Even though the church today throughout the world will have to physically suffer through the future tribulation, the church need not fear this (cf. 1 Peter 4:12-13, Revelation 2:10). For even though many in the church will suffer and die during that time (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13), this will be to their gain, as it will bring their souls into heaven to be with Jesus (Philippians 1:21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:8; see also 2 Corinthians 4:17-18; 2 Timothy 2:12), and it won't rob them of the blessed hope (Titus 2:13) of obtaining eternal life (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7) in an immortal, physical resurrection body (Romans 8:23-25, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39) at Jesus' 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), which will occur immediately after the future tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

 

[Biblewriter]

That wasn't the point. The point was that Clement said certain prophecies were fulfilled prior to AD70, that Scofield said was still in our future! That can't be that difficult to grasp?

I was answering your assumption that Clement said that Nero was the Antichrist, which he simply did not say. Clement indeed said that the seventieth week had been fulfilled, but that was the opposite of what both Irenaeus and Hyppolytus said.

Well, you didn't prove it.

In my opinion, any unbiased student would conclude that I did indeed prove it. But it is impossible to ever prove anything to someone who simply does not want to believe it.

That is correct. I have not one shred of evidence, one way or the other, on this matter. Neither did Victorinus. He was not an eyewitness to anything; and he wrote about two centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was a century after Irenaeus. And after seventeen centuries of digging up ancient fragments, there is still not one shred of evidence that he had any new information. I don't understand why you keep insisting that he did! If you have the evidence, show it!
.

You are accusing Victornius of just making things up. I am assuming that the "church fathers" were at least honest men, regardless of their scholastic abilities. As honest men, they would have to have based their historical comments on information that they at least thought was correct.

And you keep beating your drum about Victorniun, because his conclusions about the Revelation are considered to constitute very poor scholarship. But He is only one of an absolute minimum of four independent ancient sources that all date the Revelation to the time of Domatian. I stress this because it is conclusive proof of the falsehood of the claim that every other ancient witness based his statement on that of Irenaeus.

 

[Biblewriter]

That wasn't the point. The point was that Clement said certain prophecies were fulfilled prior to AD70, that Scofield said was still in our future! That can't be that difficult to grasp?

I was answering your assumption that Clement said that Nero was the Antichrist, which he simply did not say. Clement indeed said that the seventieth week had been fulfilled, but that was the opposite of what both Irenaeus and Hyppolytus said.

Well, you didn't prove it.

In my opinion, any unbiased student would conclude that I did indeed prove it. But it is impossible to ever prove anything to someone who simply does not want to believe it.

LOL! Okay. We will assume that Clement sorted John's works by 1) prophecy, and 2) epistles and gospel.

My point is that this statement by Clement was at least as as open to alternate interpretation as the statement by Irenaeus. I have yet to meet even one Preterist who does not claim that the statement by Irenaeus was a reference to the Apostle John, rather than to the Apocalyptic vision.

That is correct. I have not one shred of evidence, one way or the other, on this matter. Neither did Victorinus. He was not an eyewitness to anything; and he wrote about two centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was a century after Irenaeus. And after seventeen centuries of digging up ancient fragments, there is still not one shred of evidence that he had any new information. I don't understand why you keep insisting that he did! If you have the evidence, show it!
.

You are accusing Victornius of just making things up. I am assuming that the "church fathers" were at least honest men, regardless of their scholastic abilities. As honest men, they would have to have based their historical comments on information that they at least thought was correct.

And you keep beating your drum about Victorniun, because his conclusions about the Revelation are considered to constitute very poor scholarship. But He is only one of an absolute minimum of four independent ancient sources that all date the Revelation to the time of Domatian. I stress this because it is conclusive proof of the falsehood of the claim that every other ancient witness based his statement on that of Irenaeus.

 

[Rev20]

If scholars are divided about the date of revelation I'm pretty sure us lesser mortals here will not produce the definitive view that will settle the matter.

As interesting as the matter is, I am more concerned about actually understanding the books' message as it applies to us (and me) today.

John,

I began my studies in the New Testament over five decades ago, and I was later baptized as a young teenager. I learned by a study technique called "let the scripture interpret the scripture." That is the technique commonly used in traditional or reformed covenant theological seminaries.

The following are some passages that were key to my early understanding. The first one warns of false prophets who told the people they would not have to spend a full seventy years in captivity:

"Also I spake to the priests and to all this people, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord's house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylon: for they prophesy a lie unto you." -- Jer 27:16​

So, we know that when the Lord uses the word shortly, as he also does in the Revelation, it does not mean thousands of years, as futurists claim, but less than 70 years.

The second example is more subtle. Jesus said these things to his disciples:

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." -- Mt 24:42-44​

"But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." -- Mt 24:48-51​

"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." -- Mt 25:13​

"Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when he master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." -- Mk 13:33-37​

The apostles said similar things. This is Peter:

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1Pet 4:7​

I had to decide if Jesus was expecting his disciples to watch from their graves for 2000 years, or if he was coming in his kingdom in their generation, as he had just told them was going to do. I believe Jesus was not trying to trick them: that he was coming again in that generation (and he did). That meant there would be two resurrections: one for his generation, to mark the close of the old covenant; and one for the rest of us of the new covenant. The scripture does support two resurrections. I will discuss that with you later, if you wish. There are some real eye-openers.

Before continuing, I believe it important for everyone to understand the primary difference between futurists and non-futurists. Non-futurists (preterists, partial preterists, postmillennialists, etc.) believe that time contexts are consistent throughout the New Testament. That is, when Jesus said "this generation" in one instance, he meant the same thing in all other instances, and always with the commonly understood usage of the day.

I noticed early-on that Jesus and his servants were primarily talking, literally, about their own generation, beginning with John the Baptist:

"But when [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" -- Mt 3:7​

Jesus said he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:

"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Mt 15:24

That fulfilled this prophecy by Ezekiel:

"For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day." -- Eze 34:11-12​

When Jesus sent his disciples out to minister the kingdom of God, he sent them only to the lost sheep; until later in their ministry when the Gentiles were allowed into the kingdom (Acts 10, Cornelius):

"These twelve [disciples] Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." -- Mt 10:5-8​

Jesus was not so kind to his evil and corrupt generation:

"But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows," -- Mt 11:16​

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." -- Mt 12:39-40​

"And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." -- Lk 11:29-32​

Jesus used words similar to John's words when he warned that generation that they would be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets, since they were just like their murderous fathers:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." -- Mt 23:29-31​

"Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Mt 23:32-36​

"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." -- Lk 11:50-51​

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -- Jn 8:44​

Even a contemporary Jewish priest and historian, Flavius Josephus, said his generation was the wickedest generation ever!

"5. It is therefore impossible to go distinctly over every instance of these men's iniquity. I shall therefore speak my mind here at once briefly: - That neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world." [The Wars Of The Jews, V:10:5]​

Later, when I began extensive studies of the Old Testament, I found similar warnings, beginning with Moses:

"When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you. . . . When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;" -- Deu 4:25-27, 30​

"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." -- Deu 31:27-29​

Moses prophesied, in Deuteronomy 28, the destruction of Jerusalem 1500 years before the fact, including the siege, and cannibalism from the resulting famine:

"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" -- Deu 28:53​

So, they were warned of their destiny from the beginning, if they turned from God. The latter days that Moses wrote of were the last days of the old covenant age, which included the ministry of Christ and the Day of Pentecost:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" -- Heb 1:1-2​

"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" -- Acts 2:16-17​

So, when his disciples asked this . . .

"As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"" -- Mt 24:3 NASB​

. . . they were expecting imminent fulfillment, since they knew they were in the last days of the age. Jesus told them it would all be fulfilled in their generation:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Mt 24:34​

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mk 13:30​

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Lk 21:32​

He has previously told his disciples the same thing, but in different ways:

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Mt 16:27-28​

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel . . . And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." -- Mt 10:5-6, 22-23​

The proof of first century fulfillment of Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and most of the Revelation, goes on and on and on. I cannot understand how anyone could miss it!

This is a little long, but if you have any questions I will happy to answer them, to the best of my ability.
.

 

[Rev20]

I was answering your assumption that Clement said that Nero was the Antichrist, which he simply did not say. Clement indeed said that the seventieth week had been fulfilled, but that was the opposite of what both Irenaeus and Hyppolytus said.

Clement contradicted the dispensationalist, Cyrus I. Scofield, and all of his flock. That was all I was trying to say. Why are you making such a big deal out it?

In my opinion, any unbiased student would conclude that I did indeed prove it. But it is impossible to ever prove anything to someone who simply does not want to believe it.

My point is that this statement by Clement was at least as as open to alternate interpretation as the statement by Irenaeus. I have yet to meet even one Preterist who does not claim that the statement by Irenaeus was a reference to the Apostle John, rather than to the Apocalyptic vision.

I am not surprised. You have already convinced most of us you don't get around much.

You are accusing Victornius of just making things up. I am assuming that the "church fathers" were at least honest men, regardless of their scholastic abilities. As honest men, they would have to have based their historical comments on information that they at least thought was correct.

And you keep beating your drum about Victorniun, because his conclusions about the Revelation are considered to constitute very poor scholarship. But He is only one of an absolute minimum of four independent ancient sources that all date the Revelation to the time of Domatian. I stress this because it is conclusive proof of the falsehood of the claim that every other ancient witness based his statement on that of Irenaeus.

Those are your rules, not mine. I require more proof.
.