| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Azaliah" |
| Date: |
16 Nov 2006 12:56:26 PM |
| Object: |
They Say He Set the Date |
They say that because of what Irenaeus said, the date of the
writing of Revelation was set to 95-96 AD. But is that true?
What did Irenaeus say, really, after all?
Let's do three things:
1) Let's examine his comment, that btw, is the *ONLY*
reason that people assume that date.
2) See what else he said, to see if it confirms or contradicts
this conclusion by Futurists.
3) See what else we can glean from this information.
And I would ask that you please have the courage to review
this information, because if your belief is true, then it can
surely withstand this and if it your belief does not hold
water, shouldn't you want to change it, to be in line with
the facts of the issue? Certainly our own doctrine is not
more important than the truth, right?
Now for those who know me, you know what my beliefs are.
But you shouldn't act as if I was born believing these things,
nor even that I always believed them, nor even that I came
to these beliefs without some very careful consideration and
without a lot of heart wrenching nights spent in prayer and
careful study of the Scriptures and the issues surrounding
them on this matter
So please, let us just examine this a bit and I promise that
I won't take too much of your time. Isn't the truth, whatever
it may be, worth it? All I ask is that you read through this
information slowly and carefully and then, without allowing
your own biases to enter into it and without allowing your
mind to go to the quick "out of anger" responses that will
surely be stirring in your minds, that you allow the truth
to speak to you, whatever that *HONEST* conclusion of
truth may be in your mind.
So here we go. Let us find the truth!...
THE CLAIMED "EVIDENCE OF A LATE DATE BY IRENAEUS":
Bear in mind, that the "evidence" claimed, is a quote of
a quote, stated centuries later and isn't even sure to be
the actual words of Irenaeus anyway. But let us take
a look.
Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written
during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date
is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus
(AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church
historian, in AD 325:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing
positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were
necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed
in this present time, it would have been announced by
him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was
seen no very long time since, but almost in our day,
towards the end of Domitian's reign."
There are things about this statement that need to be noted.
First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp
(who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key
part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous.
According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it"
sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign.
Also, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was
John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book
itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was
written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us
through three people separated by three centuries.
Simply put, this is hear-say.
This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only
evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been
accepted by generations of people without really questioning
it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date
has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on
to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…".
Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture. But we
should also note that one of Nero's names was "Domitious".
And Robert Young (Young's Literal Analytical Concordance)
wrote...
"It was written in Patmos about 68 AD, where John had been
banished by Domitious Nero as stated in the Syriac version of
the book; and with this concurs the express statement of
Irenaeus in 175 AD, who says it happened in the reign of
Domitianou, i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc.,
stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed
Irenaeus to refer to Domitian AD95 and most succeeding
writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal
testimony is wholly in favor of the early date."
Young is not the only one to note this problem. Moses Stuart,
Heinrich Guerike, etc.. Plus, there is such a great scholarly
division regarding the thing/person that Irenaeus is referring
as to make it worthless. But of course, with the push to make
it all about each generation, by each generation, which
increases as time goes by and as people become more ignorant
as to the Jewish ways of that time and read it as if it were
written just the day before they opened their Bibles for the
first time and so, read it as if the writer was contemporary
to them, the reader of whatever time, you never hear about
the actual facts, which show this great scholarly division and
only hear what they emphasize. (:
Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier
date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning
the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the
Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found
in all the approved and ancient copies.".
Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he
speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies.
His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision"
being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and
even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own
day for him to consider the copies available to him as
"ancient".
In other words, why would he call the COPIES (which are
obviously later than the original) "ANCIENT", if the vision
were written almost in his own day? Please, think about that!
Please use logic and please, don't allow your own doctrinal
biases to color your conclusions! Truth is never found by
dismissing out of hand evidence that contradicts your wanted
conclusions! Imagine if you were on trial for your life and
you were innocent and the procedure was, to dismiss out
of hand, any evidence which showed you to be innocent!
Is this how we are to proceed?! Please say it isn't so!
And now, let us look to what else Irenaeus said, to see if
the conclusions reached by the Futurists hold water, since
if his other statements do not line up with their conclusions
about the other comment that is claimed to be his, then we
should know that they have it wrong about the statement
quoted above.
And bear in mind, I said, "their conclusions about what
he said". Remember, the Greek is ambiguous and could
mean that John himself was seen at that time and not
the vision.
IRENAEUS' OTHER COMMENT:
Irenaeus (Approx. AD 174) CHAP. IV.--ANSWER TO ANOTHER
OBJECTION, SHOWING THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM,
WHICH WAS THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING, DIMINISHED
NOTHING FROM THE SUPREME MAJESTY' AND POWER OF GOD,
FOR THAT THIS DESTRUCTION WAS PUT IN EXECUTION BY
THE MOST WISE COUNSEL OF THE SAME GOD.
1. Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they
venture to assert that, if it had been "the city of the great
King," it would not have been deserted. This is just as if
any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God,
it would never part company with the wheat; and that
the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped
away and deprived of the clusters. But as these [vine twigs]
have not been originally made for their own sake, but for
that of the fruit growing upon them, which being come to
maturity and taken away, they are left behind, and those
which do not conduce to fructification are lopped off
altogether; so also [was it with] Jerusalem, which had in
herself borne the yoke of bondage (under which man was
reduced, who in former times was not subject to God when
death was reigning, and being subdued, became a fit subject
for liberty), when the fruit of liberty had come, and reached
maturity, and been reaped and stored in the barn, and when
those which had the power to produce fruit had been carried
away from her [i.e., from Jerusalem], and scattered throughout
all the world. Even as Esaias saith, "The children of Jacob
shall strike root, and Israel shall flourish, and the whole
world shall be filled with his fruit.". The fruit, therefore,
having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem)
was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly
brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from
these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles
enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer
useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a
beginning in time must of course have an end in time also.
(note that he said that death WAS reigning and that the
fruit HAD been shown throughout the world, which means
that yes, just as Paul said, the Gospel had already been
preached throughout the world, but like I said, people
today read it as if it had been written just yesterday
and want to know how 6 billion people have heard it,
even though there weren't 6 billion people in the world
when it was said)
2. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated
with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to
fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with
them "until John.". And therefore Jerusalem, taking its
commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times,
must have an end of legislation when the new covenant
was revealed.".
This is all clearly referring to the destruction of Jerusalem,
which Irenaeus points to as the time when it was all
fulfilled!
So how could Irenaeus be saying that in 95 AD, it wasn't?
That doesn't make sense and is further proof that he was
speaking of John being seen in 95 AD and not the vision!
Besides this, the ambiguous Greek in his statement leans
more toward it saying that John was seen then and not
the vision of Revelation, which was seen before 70 AD.
There are also similarities between Revelation and some
of Paul's words, which some scholars believe shows that
Revelation was written before Ephesians and that Paul
was referring to it. See Rev 21 (the description of the city
and Ephesians 2:19-22). This also shows that this was
a symbolic description, not a literal one, since the
New Jerusalem was the church in the spiritual Kingdom
of God and not a literal city. Remember that the angel
says to John that he is showing him the bride of the Lamb
and then proceeds to show John New Jerusalem.
WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW ABOUT JOHN IN 95-96 AD?:
The first point to consider in favor of the early date is the
fact that John was told that he "must prophesy again before
many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings" in
Revelation 10:11.
Now, if Revelation was written in AD 95-96, John would have
been over 90 years old and it would have been very difficult
for him to travel to the various "nations and…many kings"
and preach. However, with Revelation written earlier, John
would have been in his mid 60's and at that age, his traveling
would have been more feasible.
Had John returned from Patmos at age 90+, [in 95A.D.],
consider: Clement claims John went into the wilderness on
horseback and chased down a former convert turned criminal,
physically capturing him, and taught him once again the truth!
Could John do this at age 90+; the age he would have been
if Revelation was written in 94-95?
Why do some people also try to reference Clement as evidence
of a late date and not inform their readers that Clement
maintained that all divine revelation ceased in the time
of Nero?!?
Clement definitely believed John wrote the Apocalypse.
But "How could he have made this statement if John's
Revelation had been written about thirty years after Nero?".
If late date advocates are going to accept the external
testimony of Clement, they are faced with a genuine
dilemma here and this proves that Clement is not
evidence and that they only have a misunderstood
quote of a quote of a quote of Irenaeus, that is
ambiguous at best, from the Greek and with Irenaeus'
other statement, shows that he was saying that John
was seen in 95 AD and not the vision of Revelation!
So why don't we hear this in our churches? Simple!
Vanity and ego! People actually believe that if the
Bible isn't all about us today, then it's useless!
WHAT VANITY!!! The Old Testament era is past.
Does that make it useless to us now? Hello???
Jerome represents John in the last years of his life
(i.e., at the time of Domitian's persecution) as being
so weak and infirm that "he was with difficulty carried
to the church and could speak only a few words to the
people" ("My little children, love one another.).
So again...
Had John returned from Patmos at age 90+, [in 95A.D.],
consider: Clement claims John went into the wilderness on
horseback and chased down a former convert turned criminal,
physically capturing him, and taught him once again the truth!
Could John do this at age 90+; the age he would have been
if Revelation was written in 94-95?
These traditions of the aged apostle, compared with each
other and with the probabilities of the case, seem to forbid
us to assign the date of the Apocalypse to the reign of
Domitian!
Tertullian places John's martyrdom at the same time frame
as Peter and Paul.
Clement states that divine revelation ceased at the time
of Nero.
Arethus, regarding Rev 7:4, states that it was about Titus'
siege of Jerusalem.
Theophlact places John's banishment 32 years after the
Ascension of Christ, squarely in the reign of Nero.
The oldest translation we know of, the Syriac version,
titles Revelation as follows: "The Revelation which was
made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos,
into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar".
And while many wish to make claims about Domitian,
the truth is, there was no great persecution of Christians
under him and the fact is, that much has been confused
by the use of this name. One of Nero's names was,
"Domitious", as I noted previously.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these facts!
And I hope that you will consider these facts with prayer
and with integrity, not trying to claim, "But what about
this verse? And this one? Well this one proves...".
These are all things we say, when we THINK that we KNOW
what something means. But the reality is, we have all been
raised up in A DOCTRINE. That does not mean that what
we believe passages say, are what they really mean. So
look at this issue with fresh eyes and please, don't turn away
from what you read here, jumping to OTHER issues. All that
proves, is that you didn't face up to THESE issues.
Hand waving away evidence and jumping to another issue,
does not prove that you proved these facts wrong. They
are after all, "facts". All it proves, if you do that, is
that you did not have the courage to face these facts
and to let them stand or fall, on their own.
I hope no one will be like that. I hope that all can deal
with what has just been put on their plate, with honesty
and integrity, instead of hand waving and insults.
If Revelation was written before 70 AD, that means that
your understanding of it and most other Scriptures is off.
That's okay. People are not perfect. And while everyone
claims, "the Holy Spirit told me", most people disagree
with each other and so, I say to their claim, "I don't
believe you, because if you're right, then that means
that there must be 6 billion different Bibles from God,
who must be contradicting Himself".
You have been wrong. You can be wrong now. And this,
"the Holy Spirit told me" claim, is nothing more than you
trying to make yourself immune from criticism and you
should know, only God gets to take that position!
May God bless your study! I mean that!
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 09:32:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:26:05 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:40:56 GMT,
in article <fnhql2hn72cpabk0p86kir0ceh27vkkfsh@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
You would do better to just avoid responding at all
You're probably correct about that, because unlike preterism,
the futurist position doesn't come crashing to the ground, if
you can't prove, beyond reasonable doubt, from uninspired,
external sources, that Revelation was written before A.D. 70.
Thank you for proving my point about how you responded.
Not to the issue, but rather, you keep insisting on avoiding
the issue, which was simply, the dating of the book of
Revelation, to attack what I believe about the Bible as
a whole. And even when this is pointed out, you insist
on once again snipping the facts about the dating ot
Revelation and continuing on with this dishonest tactic.
You have successfully pulled "a Glenn". (:
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 02:19:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:32:27 GMT,
in article <sblrl25ehe2v9eqjdlb0t2r61rtfufhv60@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:26:05 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:40:56 GMT,
in article <fnhql2hn72cpabk0p86kir0ceh27vkkfsh@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
You would do better to just avoid responding at all
You're probably correct about that, because unlike preterism,
the futurist position doesn't come crashing to the ground, if
you can't prove, beyond reasonable doubt, from uninspired,
external sources, that Revelation was written before A.D. 70.
Thank you for proving my point about how you responded.
Not to the issue, but rather, you keep insisting on avoiding
the issue, which was simply, the dating of the book of
Revelation, to attack what I believe about the Bible as
a whole. And even when this is pointed out, you insist
on once again snipping the facts about the dating ot
Revelation and continuing on with this dishonest tactic.
You have successfully pulled "a Glenn". (:
I think I know what you want me to do. You want me to argue,
head on, against your claims about what the church fathers
said, with evidence from the church fathers which I think
supports my position. I have studied that before, long ago,
then again when you posted it in here months ago, and now
again at the time you re posted your data. I have that
information available, if i wanted to engage in a debate on
that, and am convinced both the internal and external evidence
supports an A.D. 95 date.
However, that approach assumes the false premise that 1) the
external evidence from uninspired church fathers can settle
the date issue beyond a reasonable doubt, and 2) that the
futurist position needs to settle the date issue, when it does
not.
If I agreed with everything you said, including an early date
for the writing of Revelation, it would still neither prove
preterism, nor refute futurism. All it would do, is just keep
preterism from immediately being proved false, since if
Revelation was written after A.D. 70, the prophecies it makes
would either not be about the destruction of Jerusalem, or the
book would be a fraud.
You are the one who would be wise, not to try and address this
subject, because your position is the only one that has
anything to loose if Revelation were not written before A.D.
70.
If you choose to try and validate the church fathers as a
legitimate way to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, when the
book of Revelation was written, and then it can be
demonstrated they favor a date after A.D. 70, then your whole
system of theology comes crashing to the ground, because the
prophecies then either couldn't be about the destruction of
Jerusalem, or Revelation would be fake prophecy written after
the facts. The futurist view, on the other hand, has nothing
to loose if Revelation was written in A.D. 65.
And while you talk about how I'm trying to avoid the issue,
and make this about futurism vs. preterism, you're not
ultimately posting this information, just to make people
think, or what not. Ultimately, you are posting it to try and
establish preterism and refute futurism. I'm just cutting to
the chase.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 05:54:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:19:10 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:32:27 GMT,
in article <sblrl25ehe2v9eqjdlb0t2r61rtfufhv60@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:26:05 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:40:56 GMT,
in article <fnhql2hn72cpabk0p86kir0ceh27vkkfsh@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
You would do better to just avoid responding at all
You're probably correct about that, because unlike preterism,
the futurist position doesn't come crashing to the ground, if
you can't prove, beyond reasonable doubt, from uninspired,
external sources, that Revelation was written before A.D. 70.
Thank you for proving my point about how you responded.
Not to the issue, but rather, you keep insisting on avoiding
the issue, which was simply, the dating of the book of
Revelation, to attack what I believe about the Bible as
a whole. And even when this is pointed out, you insist
on once again snipping the facts about the dating ot
Revelation and continuing on with this dishonest tactic.
You have successfully pulled "a Glenn". (:
I think I know what you want me to do. You want me to argue,
head on, against your claims about what the church fathers
said, with evidence from the church fathers which I think
supports my position. I have studied that before, long ago,
then again when you posted it in here months ago, and now
again at the time you re posted your data. I have that
information available, if i wanted to engage in a debate on
that, and am convinced both the internal and external evidence
supports an A.D. 95 date.
That is a claim. And it is one that you are unable
to support. And I am not the one who wanted to
argue. You are the one who attacked my system
of belief. I simply posted some information on
the dating of Revelation.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 07:47:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:54:28 GMT,
in article <qrisl2d26cahjbit2sibm92atd47n6ibde@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I know what you want me to do. You want me to argue,
head on, against your claims about what the church fathers
said, with evidence from the church fathers which I think
supports my position. I have studied that before, long ago,
then again when you posted it in here months ago, and now
again at the time you re posted your data. I have that
information available, if i wanted to engage in a debate on
that, and am convinced both the internal and external evidence
supports an A.D. 95 date.
That is a claim. And it is one that you are unable
to support.
See http://tinyurl.com/y5k86x
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
16 Nov 2006 11:21:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:32:14 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:48:19 GMT,
in article <buepl2lg3pug5jqn44aj962gf4gb69kdu6@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) The Futurist position does stand or fall based on
when it was written. If that were not true, then we
would not see people looking for events that fulfill it,
I don't believe any of the events of Revelation 4-22 have been
fulfilled yet, and am not looking to find them in any news
reports.
You can believe what you wish. What you did not do,
was to even bother considering what I posted. And
by your own admission, you allowed your beliefs to
color you reading. You did not care what might be
true and what might not be, in what I said. You simply
decided that your doctrine was beyond question and so,
ignored what I posted and then wished to pretend that
you took an honest look at it, when we both know, you
responded way too quickly for that to be the case.
And now, here we are, with most of what I wrote
snipped and you, telling me about your beliefs,
which do not address at all, anything I posted.
It is this kind of unwillingness to examine ones beliefs,
that I was asking people to put aside, when they read
my message and to carefully examine what I posted.
You chose to do the opposite and give me a speech
that someone else wrote, which would change the
subject from what I wrote. And why you think that
quoting someone else claiming what my beliefs hinge
on means that you proved something, is beyond me.
But what you hope for, is that even I will ignore what
I posted and chase your ghost rabbit down the hole,
so you can try to attack me based on a fallacy that
you used, to ignore what I actually posted! (:
I wished to think better of you, but I can see that when
it comes to your Futurist doctrine, you have not changed
one bit.
A doctrine that is unwilling to be examined, is a doctrine
that is afraid of scrutiny. (:
You ignore the information and try to change the subject
and post speeches that have nothing to do with what I said.
Gee Randy, isn't this the same type of tactic that we are
upset with Glenn for using? Ignore what is said and try
to change the subject, without addressing the points made?
Of course it is, so how are your actions here, any different
than his? (:
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chayim" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
19 Nov 2006 10:52:15 PM |
|
|
"Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46hql2ps2c31mgmr93d8ou28pog14ghrn5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:32:14 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:48:19 GMT,
in article <buepl2lg3pug5jqn44aj962gf4gb69kdu6@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) The Futurist position does stand or fall based on
when it was written. If that were not true, then we
would not see people looking for events that fulfill it,
I don't believe any of the events of Revelation 4-22 have been
fulfilled yet, and am not looking to find them in any news
reports.
You can believe what you wish. What you did not do,
was to even bother considering what I posted.
<<< exactly what Dave does himself accusing others of :)
And
by your own admission, you allowed your beliefs to
color you reading.
<< exactly what Dave does accusing others of :)
You did not care what might be
true and what might not be, in what I said.
<< same
You simply
decided that your doctrine was beyond question and so,
ignored what I posted and then wished to pretend that
you took an honest look at it, when we both know, you
responded way too quickly for that to be the case.
And now, here we are, with most of what I wrote
snipped and you, telling me about your beliefs,
which do not address at all, anything I posted.
<< the same
It is this kind of unwillingness to examine ones beliefs,
that I was asking people to put aside, when they read
my message and to carefully examine what I posted.
You chose to do the opposite and give me a speech
that someone else wrote, which would change the
subject from what I wrote. And why you think that
quoting someone else claiming what my beliefs hinge
on means that you proved something, is beyond me.
But what you hope for, is that even I will ignore what
I posted and chase your ghost rabbit down the hole,
so you can try to attack me based on a fallacy that
you used, to ignore what I actually posted! (:
<< Dave continually does this what he accuses others of.
I wished to think better of you, but I can see that when
it comes to your Futurist doctrine, you have not changed
one bit.
A doctrine that is unwilling to be examined, is a doctrine
that is afraid of scrutiny. (:
Yet Dave claims anyone who questions him is insulting him :)
You ignore the information and try to change the subject
and post speeches that have nothing to do with what I said.
<< exactly what Dave does that he accuses others of :)
Gee Randy, isn't this the same type of tactic that we are
upset with Glenn for using? Ignore what is said and try
to change the subject, without addressing the points made?
<<< This is obediance to "Jesus"?
Of course it is, so how are your actions here, any different
than his? (:
How are Daves?
Randy why do you bother? Sure you could be right about Revelations, there
is no real evidence either way.
My opinion is that Dave is right about the date of Revelations, but it is
only an opinion based on the "5 have fallen one is" << refering to Roman
Emperors.
I take a middle view between you and Dave. I see Revelations as a
progressive book as I see most of prophecy. Some has been filled, some
things have not been filled.
You choose to say none of it has? Fine with me :)
Better to have that view than to say it has all been filled in my "opinion"
Dave himself does not dicuss, you are wasting your time. The Spirit in him
is not of GOD, my kind suggestion to you is to ignore him and dont get
caught up in endless debate with him :)
Peace..
Selah..~~!!!!
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
Who the heck is "Jah"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 08:02:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:21:17 GMT,
in article <46hql2ps2c31mgmr93d8ou28pog14ghrn5@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:32:14 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:48:19 GMT,
in article <buepl2lg3pug5jqn44aj962gf4gb69kdu6@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) The Futurist position does stand or fall based on
when it was written. If that were not true, then we
would not see people looking for events that fulfill it,
I don't believe any of the events of Revelation 4-22 have been
fulfilled yet, and am not looking to find them in any news
reports.
You can believe what you wish. What you did not do,
was to even bother considering what I posted.
I did read what you wrote, both now, and months ago, and have
already weighed the evidence of the church fathers, from you
and other sources:
1) A pre A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation neither
proves preterism, or disproves futurism.
If Revelation were not written before A.D. 70, then either the
destruction of Jerusalem is not the events Revelation
prophesied, or Revelation is a fake, written after the events
occurred. You have to prove Revelation was written before
A.D. 70, or else preterism comes crashing, irretrievably, to
the ground. By contrast, it doesn't make a bit of difference,
to the futurist position, whether Revelation were written in
A.D. 65, or A.D. 95.
2) You are basing your claims on the uninspired, external
evidence of what the Church father's wrote.
John didn't say when he wrote Revelation, other than it was
the "Lord's day". We cannot, then, establish the year
Revelation was written, beyond reasonable doubt, based on
revelation from God. It will always remain debatable what the
church fathers said and meant, so they are not an inspired,
conclusive means of determining the date of Revelation.
Why would anyone want to establish the date Revelation was
written, on the basis of uninspired, external evidence, then
interpret the meaning of the Scriptures, on the basis of that
date? That's not sound hermeneutics.
You should be glad I'm taking this position, because if I did
regard the church fathers as a conclusive way to determine the
date of Revelation, beyond reasonable doubt, and it turns out
that date is A.D. 95 (which I believe it is), then it would
immediately and irretrievably prove preterism false. You
cannot, however, disprove futurism, based on the date
Revelation was written. All you're arguing for is the
survival of your position, and you're grasping for uninspired,
external evidence to do it.
And
by your own admission, you allowed your beliefs to
color you reading. You did not care what might be
true and what might not be, in what I said.
The date Revelation was written is not established beyond
reasonable doubt, either in God's word, or in external data
from the church fathers. Why then, would you expect me to
base my interpretation of Scripture on a date that can't be
proved beyond reasonable doubt? It seems to me, you are the
one who is allowing your need for a pre A.D. 70 writing of
Revelation, to color your interpretation of what the Bible and
the church fathers said.
You simply
decided that your doctrine was beyond question and so,
ignored what I posted and then wished to pretend that
you took an honest look at it, when we both know, you
responded way too quickly for that to be the case.
I did read the evidence you presented from the church fathers,
and have already read it months before, both from what you
have said, and from other sources.
But since I do not regard the various interpretations of the
uninspired writings of the church fathers as a reliable way to
determine the date of Revelation, beyond reasonable doubt, and
since establishing a pre A.D. 70 date for Revelation neither
proves preterism correct, nor futurism wrong, but only
prevents preterism from immediately crashing to the ground, I
do not need or wish to get tangled up in debates about what
the church fathers might have meant about when Revelation was
written, even though, having weighed the evidence, I believe
they support an A.D. 95 writing of Revelation.
And now, here we are, with most of what I wrote
snipped and you, telling me about your beliefs,
which do not address at all, anything I posted.
ibid.
It is this kind of unwillingness to examine ones beliefs,
that I was asking people to put aside, when they read
my message and to carefully examine what I posted.
ibid.
You chose to do the opposite and give me a speech
that someone else wrote, which would change the
subject from what I wrote. And why you think that
quoting someone else claiming what my beliefs hinge
on means that you proved something, is beyond me.
I gave my response before quoting what someone else said, and
only included it "if you are interested". You want me to
debate external evidence from the church fathers, which is not
inspired, Biblical evidence, which cannot, beyond a reasonable
doubt, conclude when Revelation was written, and which, even
if it's proved the date was before A.D. 70, doesn't refute the
futurist position, but only prevents preterism from
immediately crashing to the ground.
But what you hope for, is that even I will ignore what
I posted and chase your ghost rabbit down the hole,
so you can try to attack me based on a fallacy that
you used, to ignore what I actually posted! (:
On the contrary. It seems to me you want me to chase your
early date view around, while ignoring that the writings of
the church fathers are uninspired, and cannot establish the
date beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as the fact that even
if the early date is proved, it doesn't refute the futurist
position, but only keeps preterism from immediately crashing
to the ground.
I wished to think better of you, but I can see that when
it comes to your Futurist doctrine, you have not changed
one bit.
And why, since an early date for the writing of Revelation
doesn't disprove futurism, or do anything but keep preterism
from immediately crashing to the ground, and on the basis of
external evidence, which is uninspired, and which therefore
cannot establish the date of Revelation beyond a reasonable
doubt, should I?
A doctrine that is unwilling to be examined, is a doctrine
that is afraid of scrutiny. (:
ibid. I have nothing to fear if Revelation was written before
A.D. 70. The preterist position, however, immediately comes
crashing to the ground, if Revelation were written in A.D. 95.
I'm not the one who feels scared about the date it was
written, or who needs to grasp for external evidence to
support my view. :)
You ignore the information and try to change the subject
and post speeches that have nothing to do with what I said.
I did not ignore the information. I read it months ago, from
you and others. It seems to me you are ignoring the fact that
a pre A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation doesn't prove
futurism wrong, but only allows preterism to survive, and that
you are trying to base the survival of your position on
external evidence which is uninspired, and which cannot answer
the issue beyond reasonable doubt.
Gee Randy, isn't this the same type of tactic that we are
upset with Glenn for using? Ignore what is said and try
to change the subject, without addressing the points made?
ibid.
Of course it is, so how are your actions here, any different
than his? (:
On the contrary, in this case, you are the one apparently
trying to keep your view alive on the basis of external,
uninspired writings and interpretations, rather than on what
the Bible says.
If you want, I can go back to your original post, include
every word you said, then insert these same comments.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 08:23:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:02:55 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:21:17 GMT,
in article <46hql2ps2c31mgmr93d8ou28pog14ghrn5@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:32:14 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:48:19 GMT,
in article <buepl2lg3pug5jqn44aj962gf4gb69kdu6@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) The Futurist position does stand or fall based on
when it was written. If that were not true, then we
would not see people looking for events that fulfill it,
I don't believe any of the events of Revelation 4-22 have been
fulfilled yet, and am not looking to find them in any news
reports.
You can believe what you wish. What you did not do,
was to even bother considering what I posted.
I did read what you wrote, both now, and months ago, and have
already weighed the evidence of the church fathers, from you
and other sources:
1) A pre A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation neither
proves preterism, or disproves futurism.
Which doesn't matter when discussing the dating of
the book of Revelation. You know this. The subject
is the dating of Revelation, regardless of what it affects.
If Revelation were not written before A.D. 70, then either the
destruction of Jerusalem is not the events Revelation
prophesied, or Revelation is a fake, written after the events
occurred.
You have to prove Revelation was written before A.D. 70,
I went a long way toward that. You claim to have read
what I posted and yet, ignore it and act as if I posted
nothing to that effect.
or else preterism comes crashing, irretrievably, to
the ground.
That is a claim and it is a claim that you make, to avoid
discussing the dating of Revelation, aside from your own
religious beliefs.
My suggestion to you, would be that if you do not wish
to simply discuss the dating of Revelation, then skip
the thread.
What you are doing now, is dishonest. You are trying
to turn it into a debate about Preterism vs Futurism,
to avoid the actual subject posted and you pretend
that I did not post any evidence for a pre-70 AD date
and this tells me all I need to know about your motive.
You ignored the information I posted and responded
with criticism of Preterism as a whole. I will not argue
this with you. If you wish to discuss the dating of
Revelation and acknowledge what I posted, fine.
But do not ignore what I posted and pretend that
you are addressing it, when you are instead trying
to lure me into a debate about Preterism vs Futurism,
in a thread about the dating of Revelation, which is
a subject independant of your personal doctrine.
The fact is, you falsely claim that the date doesn't
matter to you doctrine and yet, do your best to
avoid discussing the date and seek to attack my
belief system instead of discussing the dating
and this tells me that you know that it does affect
your doctrine and won't admit it. We both know
that if it was written before 70 AD, that your claims
about Revelation and many other Scriptures is off.
And if you didn't know that to be true, you wouldn't
have had such a problem acknowledging the facts
I presented and wouldn't have ignored them and
wouldn't have tried to change the subject to a debate
of Preterism vs Futurism. That isn't the subject here.
Again, discuss the facts that I posted about the dating
of Revelation, or move on. I won't allow you to distract
from the subject. And don't bother telling me I'm the
one who won't deal with the subject. I started this
thread and I know what the subject is and the subject
is the dating of the book of Revelation. So once again,
here is the information. Either respond directly on
point to it, or talk o yourself, because right now,
you're pulling "a Glenn". (: And I will not allow this
thread to degenerate into an argument with you about
something that isn't even the subject of this thread. (:
************************************************
They say that because of what Irenaeus said, the date of the
writing of Revelation was set to 95-96 AD. But is that true?
What did Irenaeus say, really, after all?
Let's do three things:
1) Let's examine his comment, that btw, is the *ONLY*
reason that people assume that date.
2) See what else he said, to see if it confirms or contradicts
this conclusion by Futurists.
3) See what else we can glean from this information.
And I would ask that you please have the courage to review
this information, because if your belief is true, then it can
surely withstand this and if it your belief does not hold
water, shouldn't you want to change it, to be in line with
the facts of the issue? Certainly our own doctrine is not
more important than the truth, right?
Now for those who know me, you know what my beliefs are.
But you shouldn't act as if I was born believing these things,
nor even that I always believed them, nor even that I came
to these beliefs without some very careful consideration and
without a lot of heart wrenching nights spent in prayer and
careful study of the Scriptures and the issues surrounding
them on this matter
So please, let us just examine this a bit and I promise that
I won't take too much of your time. Isn't the truth, whatever
it may be, worth it? All I ask is that you read through this
information slowly and carefully and then, without allowing
your own biases to enter into it and without allowing your
mind to go to the quick "out of anger" responses that will
surely be stirring in your minds, that you allow the truth
to speak to you, whatever that *HONEST* conclusion of
truth may be in your mind.
So here we go. Let us find the truth!...
THE CLAIMED "EVIDENCE OF A LATE DATE BY IRENAEUS":
Bear in mind, that the "evidence" claimed, is a quote of
a quote, stated centuries later and isn't even sure to be
the actual words of Irenaeus anyway. But let us take
a look.
Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written
during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date
is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus
(AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church
historian, in AD 325:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing
positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were
necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed
in this present time, it would have been announced by
him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was
seen no very long time since, but almost in our day,
towards the end of Domitian's reign."
There are things about this statement that need to be noted.
First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp
(who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key
part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous.
According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it"
sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign.
Also, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was
John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book
itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was
written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us
through three people separated by three centuries.
Simply put, this is hear-say.
This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only
evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been
accepted by generations of people without really questioning
it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date
has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on
to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…".
Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture. But we
should also note that one of Nero's names was "Domitious".
And Robert Young (Young's Literal Analytical Concordance)
wrote...
"It was written in Patmos about 68 AD, where John had been
banished by Domitious Nero as stated in the Syriac version of
the book; and with this concurs the express statement of
Irenaeus in 175 AD, who says it happened in the reign of
Domitianou, i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc.,
stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed
Irenaeus to refer to Domitian AD95 and most succeeding
writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal
testimony is wholly in favor of the early date."
Young is not the only one to note this problem. Moses Stuart,
Heinrich Guerike, etc.. Plus, there is such a great scholarly
division regarding the thing/person that Irenaeus is referring
as to make it worthless. But of course, with the push to make
it all about each generation, by each generation, which
increases as time goes by and as people become more ignorant
as to the Jewish ways of that time and read it as if it were
written just the day before they opened their Bibles for the
first time and so, read it as if the writer was contemporary
to them, the reader of whatever time, you never hear about
the actual facts, which show this great scholarly division and
only hear what they emphasize. (:
Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier
date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning
the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the
Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found
in all the approved and ancient copies.".
Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he
speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies.
His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision"
being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and
even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own
day for him to consider the copies available to him as
"ancient".
In other words, why would he call the COPIES (which are
obviously later than the original) "ANCIENT", if the vision
were written almost in his own day? Please, think about that!
Please use logic and please, don't allow your own doctrinal
biases to color your conclusions! Truth is never found by
dismissing out of hand evidence that contradicts your wanted
conclusions! Imagine if you were on trial for your life and
you were innocent and the procedure was, to dismiss out
of hand, any evidence which showed you to be innocent!
Is this how we are to proceed?! Please say it isn't so!
And now, let us look to what else Irenaeus said, to see if
the conclusions reached by the Futurists hold water, since
if his other statements do not line up with their conclusions
about the other comment that is claimed to be his, then we
should know that they have it wrong about the statement
quoted above.
And bear in mind, I said, "their conclusions about what
he said". Remember, the Greek is ambiguous and could
mean that John himself was seen at that time and not
the vision.
IRENAEUS' OTHER COMMENT:
Irenaeus (Approx. AD 174) CHAP. IV.--ANSWER TO ANOTHER
OBJECTION, SHOWING THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM,
WHICH WAS THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING, DIMINISHED
NOTHING FROM THE SUPREME MAJESTY' AND POWER OF GOD,
FOR THAT THIS DESTRUCTION WAS PUT IN EXECUTION BY
THE MOST WISE COUNSEL OF THE SAME GOD.
1. Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they
venture to assert that, if it had been "the city of the great
King," it would not have been deserted. This is just as if
any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God,
it would never part company with the wheat; and that
the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped
away and deprived of the clusters. But as these [vine twigs]
have not been originally made for their own sake, but for
that of the fruit growing upon them, which being come to
maturity and taken away, they are left behind, and those
which do not conduce to fructification are lopped off
altogether; so also [was it with] Jerusalem, which had in
herself borne the yoke of bondage (under which man was
reduced, who in former times was not subject to God when
death was reigning, and being subdued, became a fit subject
for liberty), when the fruit of liberty had come, and reached
maturity, and been reaped and stored in the barn, and when
those which had the power to produce fruit had been carried
away from her [i.e., from Jerusalem], and scattered throughout
all the world. Even as Esaias saith, "The children of Jacob
shall strike root, and Israel shall flourish, and the whole
world shall be filled with his fruit.". The fruit, therefore,
having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem)
was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly
brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from
these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles
enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer
useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a
beginning in time must of course have an end in time also.
(note that he said that death WAS reigning and that the
fruit HAD been shown throughout the world, which means
that yes, just as Paul said, the Gospel had already been
preached throughout the world, but like I said, people
today read it as if it had been written just yesterday
and want to know how 6 billion people have heard it,
even though there weren't 6 billion people in the world
when it was said)
2. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated
with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to
fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with
them "until John.". And therefore Jerusalem, taking its
commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times,
must have an end of legislation when the new covenant
was revealed.".
This is all clearly referring to the destruction of Jerusalem,
which Irenaeus points to as the time when it was all
fulfilled!
So how could Irenaeus be saying that in 95 AD, it wasn't?
That doesn't make sense and is further proof that he was
speaking of John being seen in 95 AD and not the vision!
Besides this, the ambiguous Greek in his statement leans
more toward it saying that John was seen then and not
the vision of Revelation, which was seen before 70 AD.
There are also similarities between Revelation and some
of Paul's words, which some scholars believe shows that
Revelation was written before Ephesians and that Paul
was referring to it. See Rev 21 (the description of the city
and Ephesians 2:19-22). This also shows that this was
a symbolic description, not a literal one, since the
New Jerusalem was the church in the spiritual Kingdom
of God and not a literal city. Remember that the angel
says to John that he is showing him the bride of the Lamb
and then proceeds to show John New Jerusalem.
WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW ABOUT JOHN IN 95-96 AD?:
The first point to consider in favor of the early date is the
fact that John was told that he "must prophesy again before
many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings" in
Revelation 10:11.
Now, if Revelation was written in AD 95-96, John would have
been over 90 years old and it would have been very difficult
for him to travel to the various "nations and…many kings"
and preach. However, with Revelation written earlier, John
would have been in his mid 60's and at that age, his traveling
would have been more feasible.
Had John returned from Patmos at age 90+, [in 95A.D.],
consider: Clement claims John went into the wilderness on
horseback and chased down a former convert turned criminal,
physically capturing him, and taught him once again the truth!
Could John do this at age 90+; the age he would have been
if Revelation was written in 94-95?
Why do some people also try to reference Clement as evidence
of a late date and not inform their readers that Clement
maintained that all divine revelation ceased in the time
of Nero?!?
Clement definitely believed John wrote the Apocalypse.
But "How could he have made this statement if John's
Revelation had been written about thirty years after Nero?".
If late date advocates are going to accept the external
testimony of Clement, they are faced with a genuine
dilemma here and this proves that Clement is not
evidence and that they only have a misunderstood
quote of a quote of a quote of Irenaeus, that is
ambiguous at best, from the Greek and with Irenaeus'
other statement, shows that he was saying that John
was seen in 95 AD and not the vision of Revelation!
So why don't we hear this in our churches? Simple!
Vanity and ego! People actually believe that if the
Bible isn't all about us today, then it's useless!
WHAT VANITY!!! The Old Testament era is past.
Does that make it useless to us now? Hello???
Jerome represents John in the last years of his life
(i.e., at the time of Domitian's persecution) as being
so weak and infirm that "he was with difficulty carried
to the church and could speak only a few words to the
people" ("My little children, love one another.).
So again...
Had John returned from Patmos at age 90+, [in 95A.D.],
consider: Clement claims John went into the wilderness on
horseback and chased down a former convert turned criminal,
physically capturing him, and taught him once again the truth!
Could John do this at age 90+; the age he would have been
if Revelation was written in 94-95?
These traditions of the aged apostle, compared with each
other and with the probabilities of the case, seem to forbid
us to assign the date of the Apocalypse to the reign of
Domitian!
Tertullian places John's martyrdom at the same time frame
as Peter and Paul.
Clement states that divine revelation ceased at the time
of Nero.
Arethus, regarding Rev 7:4, states that it was about Titus'
siege of Jerusalem.
Theophlact places John's banishment 32 years after the
Ascension of Christ, squarely in the reign of Nero.
The oldest translation we know of, the Syriac version,
titles Revelation as follows: "The Revelation which was
made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos,
into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar".
And while many wish to make claims about Domitian,
the truth is, there was no great persecution of Christians
under him and the fact is, that much has been confused
by the use of this name. One of Nero's names was,
"Domitious", as I noted previously.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chayim" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
19 Nov 2006 11:10:55 PM |
|
|
"Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fhrl2l9v9oargurhabbqqd5sentj5qcs5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:02:55 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:21:17 GMT,
in article <46hql2ps2c31mgmr93d8ou28pog14ghrn5@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:32:14 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:48:19 GMT,
in article <buepl2lg3pug5jqn44aj962gf4gb69kdu6@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) The Futurist position does stand or fall based on
when it was written. If that were not true, then we
would not see people looking for events that fulfill it,
I don't believe any of the events of Revelation 4-22 have been
fulfilled yet, and am not looking to find them in any news
reports.
You can believe what you wish. What you did not do,
was to even bother considering what I posted.
I did read what you wrote, both now, and months ago, and have
already weighed the evidence of the church fathers, from you
and other sources:
1) A pre A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation neither
proves preterism, or disproves futurism.
Which doesn't matter when discussing the dating of
the book of Revelation. You know this. The subject
is the dating of Revelation, regardless of what it affects.
If Revelation were not written before A.D. 70, then either the
destruction of Jerusalem is not the events Revelation
prophesied, or Revelation is a fake, written after the events
occurred.
You have to prove Revelation was written before A.D. 70,
I went a long way toward that. You claim to have read
what I posted and yet, ignore it and act as if I posted
nothing to that effect.
Moot debate here, take the middle position Randy, Dave's premise is false,
Why engage in an arguement when one side is dictating a false premise?
or else preterism comes crashing, irretrievably, to
the ground.
<< not necassarily Randy. I cojld make the arguement as I have before that
some of Revelations has been filled, while other parts are being filled and
yet others remain to come to pass.
That is a claim and it is a claim that you make, to avoid
discussing the dating of Revelation, aside from your own
religious beliefs.
My suggestion to you, would be that if you do not wish
to simply discuss the dating of Revelation, then skip
the thread.
dictation of a false premise, something Dave seems to engage in quite a
bit :)
What you are doing now, is dishonest. You are trying
to turn it into a debate about Preterism vs Futurism,
to avoid the actual subject posted and you pretend
that I did not post any evidence for a pre-70 AD date
and this tells me all I need to know about your motive.
Dave is deflecting once again. Dave creates the premise of an early dating
of revelations to prove the preturist view point, then objects and claims
others are dishonest by using the inverse point of view to prove futurism.
Personally, I find this extremely dishonest, but I am not his judge :)
You ignored the information I posted and responded
with criticism of Preterism as a whole. I will not argue
this with you. If you wish to discuss the dating of
Revelation and acknowledge what I posted, fine.
<< why who are you, or me or any of us that we should receive recognition?
This is pride and is not of THE FATHER, but something else.
But do not ignore what I posted and pretend that
you are addressing it, when you are instead trying
to lure me into a debate about Preterism vs Futurism,
in a thread about the dating of Revelation, which is
a subject independant of your personal doctrine.
<<< exactly what Dave does himself, accusing others of.
The fact is, you falsely claim that the date doesn't
matter to you doctrine and yet, do your best to
avoid discussing the date and seek to attack my
belief system instead of discussing the dating
and this tells me that you know that it does affect
your doctrine and won't admit it.
Randy is simply debating your false premise, however when anyone disagrees
with you, you seem to think its a personal attack >> THIS IS PRIDE and is
not of THE FATHER.
We both know
that if it was written before 70 AD, that your claims
about Revelation and many other Scriptures is off.
But here, if I add a viewpoint, Dave will claim he is being personally
attacked, so whats the point?
short view, it can be written before 70, we can have 5 emperors who have
been past, one who is = nero, and one who is yet to come. AFTERWARDS THERE
IS AN 8TH which never came unless we have historical proof that the 8th head
caused everyone small and great to receive a mark on the forehead and in the
arms.
There is no evidence of this at all in history, so you see Randy. Dave's
premise is false. Let him have his viewpoint, this is how to defeat his end
view of preturism. He claims in preturism all has been filled.
Micah 4 says the nations will learn war no more, that there would be peace
between the nations, yet after 70 CE, this has never happened= DAVES PREMISE
IS FALSE and is in vain, whether you say revelations was written in 70 or
before, or 90 or later.. follow?
Therefore any other point Dave makes in prophecy which can have an alternate
meaning to point to preturism fails, because a plain and simple reading of
the prophets in the areas there are not symbolism or allegories, clearly
shows many things have not yet come to pass/
Micah 4 again... The acceptance of Jeremiah 31 by those called "Jews" The
National restoration of Israel God promises. Notice I point this out to Dave
all the time and he himself attacks me personally, bvut I dont complain, I
have come to expect this from the satan.. << he will think thats a personal
attack, its not. Paul clearly teaches us to test the spirits, that there are
many powers and principalities. Im not calling Dave Satan, I am saying the
spirit with him is of the satan.
And if you didn't know that to be true, you wouldn't
have had such a problem acknowledging the facts
I presented and wouldn't have ignored them and
wouldn't have tried to change the subject to a debate
of Preterism vs Futurism. That isn't the subject here.
<< over an over again, a false premise, again, Dave creates a premise,
that is, revelations was written before 70, TO PROVE A SUPPOSITIONAL POINT
OF VIEW, yet attacks those who offer counter evidence in the above manner.
Pride and ego, to be right, be aware, those consume us and is of the flesh.
do not get caught up with Dave and his God.
Now I cut off the rest of this. I am thankful Dave put me on ignore. It
would be sad to see him again make outrageous accusations once again :) I am
not cutting it off to try to deceive or make Dave look bad, I can care less
how he "looks".. the truth is more important than Me, you, and yes EVEN
DAVE!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 10:27:56 PM |
|
|
Randy submitted this idea :
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:21:17 GMT,
in article <46hql2ps2c31mgmr93d8ou28pog14ghrn5@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:32:14 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:48:19 GMT,
in article <buepl2lg3pug5jqn44aj962gf4gb69kdu6@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4tamj211l76m0meljbpqo45eq2otbm1e0p@pulpitfire.org:
In 22 posts, Owd has misrepresented what I said, to try and impute the
idea that I endorse rape. He thinks that by manipulating my words, he
can force everything I say to mean that I endorse rape, no matter what
I actually said or say thereafter.
The actual wording goes like this:
see:
*************************************************************
[Owd:]
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
[Randy:]
Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9, but that doesn't mean I endorse
forcing it against her will. If she didn't render it, she'd be the
one sinning (defrauding), not me, but I would not force it either.
*************************************************************
Three points:
1. The answer "Yes" is enough. Randy does not admit that means other
than "force" (physical force) can be used against a wife.
2. "....she'd be the one sinning" is typical abuser behavior; it is
coercion in this case although threats and manipulation can also be
used. Examples: If you do not have sex with me, you are a sinner.
The bible says I have a right to sex whenever I want. I have a
God-given right to sex; get in bed.
3. National religious leaders and religious conferences have condemned
marital rape - no matter the method used to get sex from an unwilling
spouse. A simple goggle for "marital rape religion" will result in
many links
This person is advocating a misinterpretation of scripture which can
result in illegal behavior. All fifty states have marital rape laws.
Husbands are in prison for marital rape; not many as the majority of
men do not resort to rape using threats, manipulation, coercion, or
force. Randy's misinterpretation makes illegal his counseling of any
man to follow it; he personally could be sued by the wife. His church
could also be sued....losing any property it owns.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: They Say He Set the Date |
17 Nov 2006 07:40:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:56:26 GMT,
in article <tv8pl29s7ovkg8nqadq9h84ntojpaahftd@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
They say that because of what Irenaeus said, the date of the
writing of Revelation was set to 95-96 AD. But is that true?
What did Irenaeus say, really, after all?
Ok, Dave, you accused me of snipping and ignoring your post,
so here is a partial response to the whole thing.
At the outset, I'll say again, 1) it cannot be established,
beyond reasonable doubt, when Revelation was written, on the
basis of external evidence, and 2) an early date for
Revelation neither proves preterism correct, nor refutes the
futurist position. The only thing a pre A.D. 70 date does is
keeps preterism from immediately crashing to the ground, since
if the prophesies were recorded after A.D. 70, they either
can't be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, or they
are fake, having been recorded after the facts.
Let it also be noted that no one was born with an intuitive
knowledge of what the church fathers' and other said. The
only way someone can know about that, is by reading the
uninspired writings of some historian or commentator, or
other. It is only to be expected that someone who believes in
preterism, is going to quote sources that view the data of the
church fathers, from a preterist point of view, and that a
futurist is going to quote sources that favor a futurist point
of view. This is another reason why examining what the church
fathers said, cannot prove, beyond reasonable doubt, when
Revelation was written.
That said, I'll now, Lord willing, show why I believe the
external evidence favors an A.D. 95 writing for the book of
Revelation.
Let's do three things:
1) Let's examine his comment, that btw, is the *ONLY*
reason that people assume that date.
This is not the only reason. There is internal evidence, from
the book of Revelation that favors an A.D. 95 date for the
writing of the book, and there are numerous external sources
that seem to favor an A.D. 95 writing for the book.
External Evidence
Mark Hitchcock
"In the spring of 1998 I had the privilege of spending three
days on the island of Patmos, where the apostle John received
the book of Revelation. I spent one entire afternoon in the
Monastery of St. John. During that time, I had the
opportunity to talk at length with one of the most
distinguished Greek Orthodox priests at the monastery. I
asked him some questions about his understanding of the book
of Revelation. When I raised the subject of the date of the
book, he wasn't even aware of any contrary tradition to the
A.D. 95 date for Revelation. He scoffed at the idea that
Revelation was written at any time other than the end of
Domitian's reign.
Hegesippus (A.D. 150)
Twice, in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, where he refers
to the banishment of John to Patmos, he cites Hegesippus.
After talking about how cruel Domitian was, Eusebius wrote,
"At this time, as the story goes, the Apostle and Evangelist
John was still alive, and was condemned to live in the island
of Patmos for his witness to the divine word".
Again, apparently on the basis of what Hegesippus wrote,
Eusebious writes, "After Domitian had reigned fifteen years,
Nerva succeeded. the sentences of Domitian were annulled, and
the Roman Senate decreed the return of those who had been
unjustly banished and the restoration of their property. Those
who committed the story of those times to writing relate it.
At that time too, the story of the ancient Christians relates
that the apostle John, after his banishment to the island,
took up his abode at Ephesus".
Eusibius twice referred to Hegesippus as the source of his
information, when writing about these things, and is
apparently citing him in these references.
Iraneus (A.d. 120-202)
"For if it were necessary that the name of him [antichrist]
should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would
have been told by him who saw the apocalyptic vision. For it
was seen no long time ago, but almost in our generation,
toward the end of Domitian's reign."
To an unbiased reader, it seems clear "it", refers to the book
of Revelation. Gentry, however, tries to interpret "it" as
referring to John. This rendering is suspect for the following
reasons:
1) The nearest antecedent to the verb "it was seen", is "the
apocalypse", and the Latin rendering of Iraneous supports that
understanding of the phrase. The passive verb "eorathe"
(he/she/it was seen), seems more appropriately translated as
"it (the apocolypse)", rather than a way to explain how long
John lived.
2) the verb "was seen" fits perfectly with the noun
"apokalupsis". The apokalupsis was something John saw, and
seems a more likely reference than meaning that someone saw
John.
3) Since Iraneous was trying to show this subject had been
seen as close to his time as possible, if he had been
referring to John, rather than the Revelation, he would have
mentioned the fact John lived into the reign of Trajan.
4) The vast majority of scholars agree Iraneous referred to
the apocalypse, and not John, when he said it was seen near
the end of Domitians reign.
Iraneous, however, is *not* the only witness who can be called
on to support the A.D. 95 date for the writing of Revelation.
Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau or Petovium (d. c. A.D. 304)
Commenting on Revelation 10:11, he says,
"He says this, because when John said these things he was in
the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by
Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and
when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive
his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his
judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the
mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which
he had received from God."
On Revelation 17:10, he adds,
"The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse
was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before
him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho,
Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One
remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written--Domitian to
wit."
Eusebius Pamphili (260--340)
"But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years and Nerva
succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the
writers that record the history of those days, voted that
Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had
been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have
their property restored to them. It was at this time that the
apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and
took up his abode in Ephesus, according to an ancient
Christian tradition."
"At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom
Jesus loved, was still living in Asia and governing the
churches of that region, having returned after the death of
Domitian from his exile on the island. And that he was still
alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two
witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the
orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria."
Jerome (340--419)
John, he wrote, was
"a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he
had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the
Lord, an Apocalypse containing boundless mysteries of the
future."
"In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having
raised a second persecution, he was banished to the island of
Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and
Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having
been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive
cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to
Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of
the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all
Asia, and worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eigth year
after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city."
Sulpicius Severus (c. 400)
"Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian,
persecuted the Christians. At this time, he banished John the
Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he,
secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and
published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is
either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many."
Orosius (early fifth century)
"In the eight hundred and thirtieth year after the founding of
the City, Domitian, the ninth emperor after Augustus,
succeeded his brother, Titus, to the throne....But Domitian,
elated by the most distorted form of vanity, held a triumph
nominally over the enemy who had been overcome, but actually
over the loss of his legions. This same emperor, crazed by
his pride because of which he wished to be worshiped as a god,
was the first emperor after Nero to order a persecution
against the Christians to be carried on. Also at this time,
the most blessed Apostle John was banished to the island of
Patmos. Also among the Jews, an order was given that the race
of David be searched out and killed by cruel tortures and
bloody inquisitions, since the holy prophets were both hated
and believed, as if some day there would be One from the seed
of David who could acquire the throne."
Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumentum (c. 540)
Claimed, in the preface to his commentary on Revelation, that
John received the apocalyptic visions while banished to Patmos
during the reign of Caesar Domitian.
The Acts of John (c. 650)
"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....And Domitian, astonished at all the wonders,
sent him away to an island, appointing for him a set time. And
straightway John sailed to Patmos."
Venerable Bede (700)
"And it is told in church history how he was put by the
emperor Domitian into a tub of boiling oil, from which, since
divine grace shielded him, he came out untouched, just as he
had been a stranger to the corruption of fleshly
concupiscence. And not much after, on account of his
unconquerable constancy in bringing the good news, he was
banished in exile by the same prince to the island of Patmos,
where although he was deprived of human comfort, he
nevertheless merited to be relieved by the frequent
consolation of the divine vision and spoken message.
Accordingly, in that very place he composed with his own hand
the Apocalypse which the Lord revealed to him concerning the
present and future state of the church."
"John wrote his epistles, and his gospel, all about the same
time; for after the death of Domitian, being returned from his
exile, he found the church disturbed by heretics, which had
arisen in his absence, whom, in his epistles, he often called
antichrists."
Internal Evidence (future post, Lord willing)
(More comments below, to the end of the post)
2) See what else he said, to see if it confirms or contradicts
this conclusion by Futurists.
3) See what else we can glean from this information.
And I would ask that you please have the courage to review
this information, because if your belief is true, then it can
surely withstand this and if it your belief does not hold
water, shouldn't you want to change it, to be in line with
the facts of the issue? Certainly our own doctrine is not
more important than the truth, right?
Now for those who know me, you know what my beliefs are.
But you shouldn't act as if I was born believing these things,
nor even that I always believed them, nor even that I came
to these beliefs without some very careful consideration and
without a lot of heart wrenching nights spent in prayer and
careful study of the Scriptures and the issues surrounding
them on this matter
So please, let us just examine this a bit and I promise that
I won't take too much of your time. Isn't the truth, whatever
it may be, worth it? All I ask is that you read through this
information slowly and carefully and then, without allowing
your own biases to enter into it and without allowing your
mind to go to the quick "out of anger" responses that will
surely be stirring in your minds, that you allow the truth
to speak to you, whatever that *HONEST* conclusion of
truth may be in your mind.
So here we go. Let us find the truth!...
THE CLAIMED "EVIDENCE OF A LATE DATE BY IRENAEUS":
Bear in mind, that the "evidence" claimed, is a quote of
a quote, stated centuries later and isn't even sure to be
the actual words of Irenaeus anyway. But let us take
a look.
Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written
during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date
is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus
(AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church
historian, in AD 325:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing
positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were
necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed
in this present time, it would have been announced by
him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was
seen no very long time since, but almost in our day,
towards the end of Domitian's reign."
There are things about this statement that need to be noted.
First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp
(who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key
part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous.
According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it"
sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign.
Also, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was
John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book
itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was
written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us
through three people separated by three centuries.
Simply put, this is hear-say.
See my notes on Iraneus above.
This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only
evidence used to support the "late date" theory.
See above. Most external data supports the A.D. 95 writing of
Revelation, not to mention the internal evidence from
Revelation itself. "The first clear, accepted, unambiguous
witness to the Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the
Syriac translation of the New Testament in A.D. 550. There
are only two other external witnesses to the early date:
Arethas (c. 900) and Theophylact (d. 1107)." -- Mark
Hitchcock. It is the early date theory which has almost no
evidence to support it.
It has been
accepted by generations of people without really questioning
it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date
has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on
to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…".
No doubt you will use this argument in an attempt to dismiss
the fact that the overwhelming agreement of historians and
external sources favor the late date for Revelation. You'll
just say they all handed down the same error.
The internal data from the book of Revelation is what carries
authority, but since you claimed that statement by Iraneus was
the "*ONLY*" evidence used to support a late date, the above
sources were quoted.
Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture.
Then you should not include your interpretation of tradition,
when you think it favors your position, then claim it's only a
repetition of error, when it does not.
But we
should also note that one of Nero's names was "Domitious".
And Robert Young (Young's Literal Analytical Concordance)
wrote...
See, you correctly state that tradition is not the way to
interpret Scripture, but then, when you think you have a bit
of tradition that supports your interpretation, you don't
hesitate to include it.
"It was written in Patmos about 68 AD, where John had been
banished by Domitious Nero as stated in the Syriac version of
the book; and with this concurs the express statement of
Irenaeus in 175 AD, who says it happened in the reign of
Domitianou, i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc.,
stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed
Irenaeus to refer to Domitian AD95 and most succeeding
writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal
testimony is wholly in favor of the early date."
ibid. "The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the
Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the Syriac
translation of the New Testament in A.D. 550. There are only
two other external witnesses to the early date: Arethas (c.
900) and Theophylact (d. 1107)." -- Mark Hitchcock
You try to dismiss the overwhelming mass of historical data
that confirms the late date, as a mere passing on of error,
and you act like you think it's not a good way to interpret
the Bible, to rely on tradition (which I agree with), but
then, when you find any snippet of information that you think
supports your view, you make the most of it.
Young is not the only one to note this problem. Moses Stuart,
Heinrich Guerike, etc.. Plus, there is such a great scholarly
division regarding the thing/person that Irenaeus is referring
as to make it worthless. But of course, with the push to make
it all about each generation, by each generation, which
increases as time goes by and as people become more ignorant
as to the Jewish ways of that time and read it as if it were
written just the day before they opened their Bibles for the
first time and so, read it as if the writer was contemporary
to them, the reader of whatever time, you never hear about
the actual facts, which show this great scholarly division and
only hear what they emphasize. (:
ibid.
"It is a sufficient answer to all these forced
interpretations, that the early church always understood the
words of Irenaeus in their plain and obvious meaning, nor
would any other have been suggested if his testimony had not
been a stumbling-block in the way of modern exposition. That
Irenaeus refers the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian is
generally admitted by scholars of all shades and opinion." --
J. Ritchie Smith.
"The external evidence in favour of this view [Neronic date]
is acknowledged by all to be weak; indeed it is scarcely worth
mentioning. There is not the slightest trace of it in the
writings of the Fathers. The earliest direct statement to
this effect is a subscription attached to a manuscript of a
Syrian version of the sixth century." -- Paton Gloag.
"One cannot find a single really cogent argument in support of
the earlier date. The arguments produced are based on late
and unreliable testimonies." -- G.K. Beale
"The earliest authorities are practically unanimous in
assigning the Apocalypse to the last years of Domitian....The
external evidence is, as we have already seen, unanimous in
favour of the latter [late date] as against the former [early
date]." --R.H. Charles.
"And on the other side we have the external evidence which is
almost all in favour of the later date." --Arthur S. Peake
"The earliest authorities are almost unanimous in dating the
Apocalypse during the last years of Domitian." --Barclay
newman.
"On the one hand the tradition as to Domitian is not
unanimous; on the other it is the prevalent tradition, and
goes back to an author likely to be the recipient of a true
tradition on the matter....If external evidence alone could
decide, there would be a clear preponderance for Domitian."
--F.J.A. Hort (and it should be noted, he is a strong
supporter for the early date).
"In light of this evidence and testimony, it stretches the
limits of credulity for any preterist to assert that the
external evidence actually favors the early date. To any
unbiased mind, the external evidence overwhelmingly favors the
A.D. 95 date for Revelation." --Mark Hitchcock
Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier
date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning
the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the
Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found
in all the approved and ancient copies.".
Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he
speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies.
His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision"
being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and
even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own
day for him to consider the copies available to him as
"ancient".
In other words, why would he call the COPIES (which are
obviously later than the original) "ANCIENT", if the vision
were written almost in his own day? Please, think about that!
Please use logic and please, don't allow your own doctrinal
biases to color your conclusions! Truth is never found by
dismissing out of hand evidence that contradicts your wanted
conclusions! Imagine if you were on trial for your life and
you were innocent and the procedure was, to dismiss out
of hand, any evidence which showed you to be innocent!
Is this how we are to proceed?! Please say it isn't so!
ibid.
And now, let us look to what else Irenaeus said, to see if
the conclusions reached by the Futurists hold water, since
if his other statements do not line up with their conclusions
about the other comment that is claimed to be his, then we
should know that they have it wrong about the statement
quoted above.
And bear in mind, I said, "their conclusions about what
he said". Remember, the Greek is ambiguous and could
mean that John himself was seen at that time and not
the vision.
You say it is ambiguous, then your refutation is that "the
Greek...could mean" otherwise? That's an ambiguous
conclusion.
IRENAEUS' OTHER COMMENT:
Irenaeus (Approx. AD 174) CHAP. IV.--ANSWER TO ANOTHER
OBJECTION, SHOWING THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM,
WHICH WAS THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING, DIMINISHED
NOTHING FROM THE SUPREME MAJESTY' AND POWER OF GOD,
FOR THAT THIS DESTRUCTION WAS PUT IN EXECUTION BY
THE MOST WISE COUNSEL OF THE SAME GOD.
1. Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they
venture to assert that, if it had been "the city of the great
King," it would not have been deserted. This is just as if
any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God,
it would never part company with the wheat; and that
the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped
away and deprived of the clusters. But as these [vine twigs]
have not been originally made for their own sake, but for
that of the fruit growing upon them, which being come to
maturity and taken away, they are left behind, and those
which do not conduce to fructification are lopped off
altogether; so also [was it with] Jerusalem, which had in
herself borne the yoke of bondage (under which man was
reduced, who in former times was not subject to God when
death was reigning, and being subdued, became a fit subject
for liberty), when the fruit of liberty had come, and reached
maturity, and been reaped and stored in the barn, and when
those which had the power to produce fruit had been carried
away from her [i.e., from Jerusalem], and scattered throughout
all the world. Even as Esaias saith, "The children of Jacob
shall strike root, and Israel shall flourish, and the whole
world shall be filled with his fruit.". The fruit, therefore,
having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem)
was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly
brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from
these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles
enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer
useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a
beginning in time must of course have an end in time also.
(note that he said that death WAS reigning and that the
fruit HAD been shown throughout the world, which means
that yes, just as Paul said, the Gospel had already been
preached throughout the world, but like I said, people
today read it as if it had been written just yesterday
and want to know how 6 billion people have heard it,
even though there weren't 6 billion people in the world
when it was said)
You accused me of trying to make a case for futurism vs.
preterism, as if I was deviating from the intended point of
your thread, here, and here you are parenthetically inserting
arguments against futurism.
2. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated
with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to
fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with
them "until John.". And therefore Jerusalem, taking its
commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times,
must have an end of legislation when the new covenant
was revealed.".
This is all clearly referring to the destruction of Jerusalem,
which Irenaeus points to as the time when it was all
fulfilled!
This is your unambiguous refutation about what futurists claim
Iraneus said? He does *not* say or imply that the destruction
of Jerusalem fulfills the prophecies of Revelation. He said
Christ fulfilled the law, therefore Jerusalem must have an end
of legislation. The New Testament takes force at the time of
Christ's death (Hebrews 9), not the destruction of Jerusalem
in A.D. 70.
So how could Irenaeus be saying that in 95 AD, it wasn't?
That doesn't make sense and is further proof that he was
speaking of John being seen in 95 AD and not the vision!
ibid.
Besides this, the ambiguous Greek in his statement leans
more toward it saying that John was seen then and not
the vision of Revelation, which was seen before 70 AD.
See my points on Iraneus above.
There are also similarities between Revelation and some
of Paul's words, which some scholars believe shows that
Revelation was written before Ephesians and that Paul
was referring to it. See Rev 21 (the description of the city
and Ephesians 2:19-22). This also shows that this was
a symbolic description, not a literal one, since the
New Jerusalem was the church in the spiritual Kingdom
of God and not a literal city. Remember that the angel
says to John that he is showing him the bride of the Lamb
and then proceeds to show John New Jerusalem.
This is internal evidence, and it is weak: "some of Paul's
words, which some scholars believe...".
WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW ABOUT JOHN IN 95-96 AD?:
The first point to consider in favor of the early date is the
fact that John was told that he "must prophesy again before
many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings" in
Revelation 10:11.
This is internal evidence. And if this is all you've got, I
can show you some more that is used to support the Neronic
date.
G1909
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of
time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with
the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with
the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the
accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times)...
A legitimate interpretation is that John must prophesy
"about", or "concer | |
