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?

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!

The futurist position doesn't stand or fall based on the date
Revelation was written. Preterism can only stand if
Revelation was written before A.D. 70.