PDA

View Full Version : Revelation Date: Resource Citations and Evidences Only(not debate)



David Taylor
Mar 30th 2007, 05:42 PM
The purpose of this post, is to take the existing Revelation Dating discussion thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=82745), and create a resource post of all early historical and internal Biblical citations that effect this issue, pro and con for either date.

If you want to discuss and debate this issue, the above thread is the place to go.

I will continually edit and update this post, however, solely based on historical and internal biblical citations that I find, or others contribute to this thread.

Early dating citations will appear in blue.
Late dating citations will appear in red.
Green will be used within both, to denote emphasis only, to the germane point of a passage.

Let's see if we can gather a definitive resource on this topic here.

Some Benchmark Dates of the Era:
Crucifixion of Christ (circa 33 A.D.)
I & 2 Corinthians written (circa mid 50s A.D.)
Caesar Nero (54-68 A.D.)
Ephesians written (mid 60s A.D.)
Caesar Vespasian (70-79 A.D.)
Masada Conquered (73 A.D.)
Caesar Domitian (81-96 A.D.)
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons dies (202 A.D.)









Section One. Pre 70 extra-Biblical and Internal Biblical References for the dating of Revelation.

Early Dating References. Pre 70 A.D.
Example 1.
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-214)
Book 7, Chapter 17, paragraphs 3-4 (link (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-69.htm#P9223_2585270))
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

Example 2.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 120-202)
Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, first line of paragraph 1. (link (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577))
[I]"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six"


Example 3.
The Muratorian Fragment, (A.D. 170)
The Muratorian Canon, 48-60 (link (http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html))
"the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all."
Example 4.
Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107)
The Martyrdom of Ignatius
Chapter I.-Desire of Ignatius for Martyrdom. (link (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-38.htm#P3076_500844))
"When Trajan, not long since, succeeded to the empire of the Romans, Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character, governed the Church of the Antiochians with great care, having with difficulty escaped the former storms of the many persecutions under Domitian"

Chapter III.-Ignatius Sails to Smyrna.
"And after a great deal of suffering he came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle."
Early Dating Internal Biblical References. Pre 70 A.D.
Example 1
Revelation 11:1-2 "And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles"
.
Example 2.
will go here.....

Section Two. Post 70 (traditionally 96 A.D.) extra-Biblical and Internal Biblical References for the dating of Revelation.


Late Dating References. Post 70 A.D., (traditionally 96 A.D.)
Example 1.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 120-202)
Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, last line of paragraph 3. (link (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577))
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577) "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."



Example 2.
will go here.....Late Dating Internal Biblical References. Post 70 A.D., (traditionally 96 A.D.)


Example 1.
Revelation 2:1 "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. "


Example 2.
Revelation 2:15 "(the church in Pergamos write:) So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate."


Example 3.
will go here.....



***Credited Additions***
Early Date external reference example 1: Dave Taylor
Early Date external reference example 2: moonglow
Early Date external reference example 3: moonglow
Early Date external reference example 4: Dave Taylor
Early Date internal biblical example 1: Dave Taylor

Late Date external reference example 1: Dave Taylor
Late Date internal biblical example 1: Dave Taylor
Late Date internal biblical example 2: Dave Taylor

David Taylor
Mar 30th 2007, 05:43 PM
Send me citations, (or post them here asking for their inclusion) with references to historical source (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/) is a good library of antiquity....

And I'll update them into the original post resource material.

Once we've gathered and exhausted the resources, we can then have a more studied discussion on the pros and cons of either.

third hero
Mar 30th 2007, 05:46 PM
I'm out of this one too, because I need to hit the Library for that one. Not that I do not trust internet citations, but anyone can produce anything according to what they want to believe. And that is not limited to Christian debates.

God bless you in your endeavors.
Doug,
the Third Hero.

the rookie
Mar 30th 2007, 06:02 PM
Also, I find that the ground rules for this thread are tough to honor, because one could lay claim to "internal evidence" that is dubious and inconclusive when examined closely. In other words, the internal evidence is subject to an interpretive lens that colors the conclusions of the passages in question.

For example, someone who interprets Rev. 11:1-2 as conclusive proof of a pre-70 A.D. dating does so by establishing that the angel is speaking to John about the literal pre-70 A.D. temple; yet one would have to subsequently spiritualize away the two witnesses that immediately follow that reference as "the church and Israel", or "the word and the Spirit", though physical bodies, personal choice, or independent will, and physical resurrection are attributed to these two as they physically ascend to the heavens in context to the third woe that immediately follows, which is the seventh trumpet - or an undeniably future event.

So, to establish "internal evidence" but establish parameters that disallow closer examination of the evidence weighs the argument to one side, IMO.

David Taylor
Mar 30th 2007, 07:17 PM
I'm out of this one too, because I need to hit the Library for that one. Not that I do not trust internet citations, but anyone can produce anything according to what they want to believe. And that is not limited to Christian debates.

God bless you in your endeavors.
Doug,
the Third Hero.

That's why I provided the link to CCEL, which is an library of extant writings, and isn't in anyones dog-race over pet doctrines.

If I can't find a verifiable citation, regardless of whether it comes from Gentry, Ladd, Spurgeon, Ice, or Ryrie......I won't list it.

I want to be impartial here, (since I am not strongly convinced either way to begin with), and simply see what evidence and citations are available.

If you have time, feel welcomed to send some references along:spin:

David Taylor
Mar 30th 2007, 07:29 PM
Also, I find that the ground rules for this thread are tough to honor, because one could lay claim to "internal evidence" that is dubious and inconclusive when examined closely. In other words, the internal evidence is subject to an interpretive lens that colors the conclusions of the passages in question.

For example, someone who interprets Rev. 11:1-2 as conclusive proof of a pre-70 A.D. dating does so by establishing that the angel is speaking to John about the literal pre-70 A.D. temple; yet one would have to subsequently spiritualize away the two witnesses that immediately follow that reference as "the church and Israel", or "the word and the Spirit", though physical bodies, personal choice, or independent will, and physical resurrection are attributed to these two as they physically ascend to the heavens in context to the third woe that immediately follows, which is the seventh trumpet - or an undeniably future event.

So, to establish "internal evidence" but establish parameters that disallow closer examination of the evidence weighs the argument to one side, IMO.



Don't look at it as 'one-sided or the other'.

Look at it as a quest to gather as much related evidence, (either way) as possible, and put them in one reference spot.

That is why I am not planning on putting any 'interpretation' into the reference thread. Just citations.

After we gather citations and refernces, then all of the interpretations and examinations can be put under close examination and scrutiny.

You might say that by including the Rev 11:1-2 reference within the Pre-70 Internal reference section, I am being partial and making my own interpretation.

I will assure you I am not, and can convince you it is an impartial, objective inclusion.

Why?
Because it falls under the section stating sources that support Revelation being written prior to 70 AD. If Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, then that verse is pointing to the Pre-70 AD temple that was standing when Revelation was written.

Similarly,
If there was a passage in Revelation that spoke about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, it would similarly be cited as in internal reference under the section stating sources that support Revelation being written after 70 AD (96 AD).

Any internal scriptural references, therefore, must be given objectively, in fitting with their timeline venue....and not someone of our days interpretive model or perusation.

I seriously am excited about the gather of all related reference material, and not the advancing of one side or the other. I personally see pros-and cons to both viewpoints, and that is why I see the merit in gathering as much external and internal material as possible, then making a more accurate and studied decision.

I hope you will decide to participate. It will only make the venture more worthwhile. Who knows, we might be the very first human beings to addresss this topic.....:eek:

Tru_Knyte
Mar 30th 2007, 09:42 PM
Don't look at it as 'one-sided or the other'.

Look at it as a quest to gather as much related evidence, (either way) as possible, and put them in one reference spot.

That is why I am not planning on putting any 'interpretation' into the reference thread. Just citations.

After we gather citations and refernces, then all of the interpretations and examinations can be put under close examination and scrutiny.

You might say that by including the Rev 11:1-2 reference within the Pre-70 Internal reference section, I am being partial and making my own interpretation.

I will assure you I am not, and can convince you it is an impartial, objective inclusion.

Why?
Because it falls under the section stating sources that support Revelation being written prior to 70 AD. If Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, then that verse is pointing to the Pre-70 AD temple that was standing when Revelation was written.

Similarly,
If there was a passage in Revelation that spoke about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, it would similarly be cited as in internal reference under the section stating sources that support Revelation being written after 70 AD (96 AD).

Any internal scriptural references, therefore, must be given objectively, in fitting with their timeline venue....and not someone of our days interpretive model or perusation.

I seriously am excited about the gather of all related reference material, and not the advancing of one side or the other. I personally see pros-and cons to both viewpoints, and that is why I see the merit in gathering as much external and internal material as possible, then making a more accurate and studied decision.

I hope you will decide to participate. It will only make the venture more worthwhile. Who knows, we might be the very first human beings to addresss this topic.....:eek:

Curious, couldn't you use the same passage for both sides (e.g. pre-70AD and post-70AD)? For example, the preterist could say that the appearance of a temple in Revelation means that it must have been written before it's destruction, while the futurist uses the exact same passage but for the opposite reason, saying that because the temple was not there after 70AD it must have been writing about a future 3rd temple.

I think that's sort of similar to The Rookie's question.

Actually...thinking about this it might actually be a good thing since we could see both interpretations of the same passage..

Anyways, that's all, I look forward to reading it when it's completed. :)

David Taylor
Mar 30th 2007, 10:04 PM
Curious, couldn't you use the same passage for both sides (e.g. pre-70AD and post-70AD)? For example, the preterist could say that the appearance of a temple in Revelation means that it must have been written before it's destruction, while the futurist uses the exact same passage but for the opposite reason, saying that because the temple was not there after 70AD it must have been writing about a future 3rd temple.


Remember, we are solely looking at the date-written aspect of Revelation; in regards to either the early 70ish or late 96ish dates.

When John in 11:1-2 was given instructions, it was to go and measure what was presently there to measure at that time.

If that verse had said something like, 'go and survey the pile of stones that lay in front of you that used to be the temple'....then it would be an appropriate comment for a late-date writing of Revelation.

Regardless of when Revelation was written, John was told to measure the temple that was standing...nowhere does the internal evidence of Revelation mention another different temple being built, so to assume so from a futurist application, is just speculation and conjecture that is derived from that viewpoint. Not from the internal evidence only, that Revelation itself supplies.

Revelation's internal evidence, only speaks of a standing Jewish temple that John who lived in the 1st century (when a Jewish temple did actually stand in Jerusalem), is to go and measure.

Hope that is clear. I don't care to debate for or against either side. Please send me some citations and references to add though....moonglow did earlier, and I look forward to see who will submit the next set of data. I gotta go to a soccer game with my daughter for now, and can't dig into any references myself right now.

Tru_Knyte
Mar 30th 2007, 11:43 PM
Hope that is clear. I don't care to debate for or against either side. Please send me some citations and references to add though....moonglow did earlier, and I look forward to see who will submit the next set of data. I gotta go to a soccer game with my daughter for now, and can't dig into any references myself right now.

Okiedokie

I'll probably do some research later when I get back from the movies (and finish my paper that I've been procrastinating on)

David Taylor
Mar 31st 2007, 03:06 AM
I just spent an hour trying to research and find any clear and obvious 'internal evidence' for the Late Date view. It is much easier finding external evidence, or at least people referring to earlier people, who refer down to Irenaeus (who was quoting Polycarp from memory)

If anyone has any good and sound late-date internal evidence verses and links, I would appreciate it.

BeOfGoodCourage
Mar 31st 2007, 03:21 AM
I just spent an hour trying to research and find any clear and obvious 'internal evidence' for the Late Date view. It is much easier finding external evidence, or at least people referring to earlier people, who refer down to Irenaeus (who was quoting Polycarp from memory)

If anyone has any good and sound late-date internal evidence verses and links, I would appreciate it.

The best sound evidence is the book of Revelation itself. It is in perfect harmony with what Jesus said and with the warnings and comforting all the inspired NT writers spoke. The evidence is waiting for most yet to discover once they put aside the dispensational/pre-trib pulpit teaching.

Saved7
Mar 31st 2007, 03:28 AM
If I were to give internal evidence, I would give all of the prophetic writings such as Isaiah or Jeremiah or Jonah, or some other prophetic book. Reason? These were all usually written sooo far in advance of the events that if indeed the book of Rev was written before or around the time of 70 AD, then it wouldn't line up with the rest of the Word of God. In that, if the return of our Lord has already occurred when amills or preterists would have us believe, then there isn't the traditional length of time between the prophecy and the actual fulfillment of the prophecies written therein.

When there is that massive of a prophecy written, in general it takes a very very long time to be fulfilled. And if you really pay attention to all that is written there in the book of Rev. then you will see that there is waaaay to much there to have ocurred in such a brief period of time. It takes time for the truth to spread, and it takes time for famine and disease to spread and whatever else, wars to be fought, and decisions by govts to be made for a "mark" that will permit only those who wear it to make purchases and sales. All of these things take time. And those are to name only a minut few. And what about this "wormwood" or this "great star" that falls to the earth, where is the evidence of those occurrances during the early church era?

Besides, we all know that God moves much slower than we do. So if you put just those to lines of thought together (time it takes to fulfill all those prophecies and time between prophecy and fulfillment), you should be able to see that there is a large span of time to be considered, that must be made when reading such a prophetic book.

And honestly, if we even consider just the first horsemen, as being the "church" or the body of Christ on earth; then you must realize that when that horse went out, it never came back. It had a job to do until the very end. And the church is still doing it's job, albeit not really well these days:rolleyes: , but still the same, doing her job.;)

And as Moonglow had posted, there are a bunch of judgements that followed after that horse, beginning with other horses. I see these as the curse that enters the homes of the theif and all those who reject our Lord. Like Moonglow pointed out, look at all of these 3rd world countries, and the muslim countries, though they have all the oil in the world, they suffer as though they are poor.
The curse I speak of IMHO is Zecheriah 5:1-4

Zec 5:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

maybe this is a scroll with the truth about Jesus on it. ie the bible.


Zec 5:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=2&version=kjv#2)And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof [is] twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

Zec 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)Then said he unto me, This [is] the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off [as] on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off [as] on that side according to it.

Zec 5:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=4&version=kjv#4)I will bring it forth, saith the LORD of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

Maybe this is symolic and literal of the curse of those who reject Jesus Christ, and it is we who bring Christ to the world, we the "church" mentioned above as the white horse rider in Rev 6:1.:saint:

PS, I just wanted to note, that it has taken a good deal of studying and humbling of myself just to finally admit I was wrong about who the first horseman was. I used to believe it was the AC. But after reading many things that have been posted here by others, I now realize that those who say that the first horseman is either "Christ" or the church, is right. Partly because of the fact that "immediately" after the "Lamb" that appeared as though it had been slain, is handed the scroll, He/Jesus begins to open it. ANd I believe that is Pentecost, when the horse goes out. And that is just the first seal, don't you think that God would be "patient" enough (not wanting that any should perish) to let the church do her job "until" the end of the time of the "gentiles"?

Pentecost; the believers were commanded to stay in Jerusalem UNTIL they were empowered by the Holy Spirit. That's when "they went forth conquering and to conquer". And it was and continues to be a bloodless battle (so to speak). What I mean by that is there are NO ARROWS FOR HIS BOW!!:D And he was "given" a crown. The horseman, didn't "gain" his crown through the battles of his conquering, but he was given it. And he was wearing white, as many have said, "white" apparel is used only to describe purity. Never used to describe satan.

Just some extra thoughts I wanted to share on the whole "time" issue.:saint:

moonglow
Mar 31st 2007, 02:10 PM
I hope David doesn't edit me...I am NOT debating...only correcting a wrong viewpoint by Saved...I hope that is ok. :) If this isn't corrected then confusion will continue on trying to understand the dating of Revelation.


If I were to give internal evidence, I would give all of the prophetic writings such as Isaiah or Jeremiah or Jonah, or some other prophetic book. Reason? These were all usually written sooo far in advance of the events that if indeed the book of Rev was written before or around the time of 70 AD, then it wouldn't line up with the rest of the Word of God. In that, if the return of our Lord has already occurred when amills or preterists would have us believe, then there isn't the traditional length of time between the prophecy and the actual fulfillment of the prophecies written therein.

Ok Saved, you did an excellent post here with very sound reasoning...but your logic can only carry you so far because of your incorrect understanding of what the amills or partial preterists believe...they do NOT believe Jesus has returned yet. So yes ALOT of time has passed for this prophecy of His return to be fulfilled. Not all propheties took alot of time to happen in the bible either...some happened in that person's lifetime and fairly quickly. Such as Noah's ark.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-questions.html
Answer: How long did it take Noah to build the ark? The Bible does not specifically say how long it took Noah to build the ark. When Noah is first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old. When Noah entered the ark, he was 600 years old. The time it took to build the ark would depend on how much time had passed between Genesis 5:32 and the time that God commanded Noah to build the ark (Genesis 6:14-21). At the absolute most, it took 100 years.

When Jesus predited the destruction of Jerusalem it happened in those people's lifetime. I can't remember right now if it was forty years after His death and rising or 70...but it was a short amount of time. But you are right God IS patiently waiting. Even if Jesus returned in the past though it doesn't mean people aren't still being saved. Anyway I just wanted to correct the misunderstanding of what the amills and partial preterists believe on here. Only full preterists believe Jesus already returned and that view is not allowed on the board.



When there is that massive of a prophecy written, in general it takes a very very long time to be fulfilled. And if you really pay attention to all that is written there in the book of Rev. then you will see that there is waaaay to much there to have ocurred in such a brief period of time. It takes time for the truth to spread, and it takes time for famine and disease to spread and whatever else, wars to be fought, and decisions by govts to be made for a "mark" that will permit only those who wear it to make purchases and sales. All of these things take time. And those are to name only a minut few. And what about this "wormwood" or this "great star" that falls to the earth, where is the evidence of those occurrances during the early church era?

Besides, we all know that God moves much slower than we do. So if you put just those to lines of thought together (time it takes to fulfill all those prophecies and time between prophecy and fulfillment), you should be able to see that there is a large span of time to be considered, that must be made when reading such a prophetic book.

And honestly, if we even consider just the first horsemen, as being the "church" or the body of Christ on earth; then you must realize that when that horse went out, it never came back. It had a job to do until the very end. And the church is still doing it's job, albeit not really well these days:rolleyes: , but still the same, doing her job.;)

And as Moonglow had posted, there are a bunch of judgements that followed after that horse, beginning with other horses. I see these as the curse that enters the homes of the theif and all those who reject our Lord. Like Moonglow pointed out, look at all of these 3rd world countries, and the muslim countries, though they have all the oil in the world, they suffer as though they are poor.
The curse I speak of IMHO is Zecheriah 5:1-4

Zec 5:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

maybe this is a scroll with the truth about Jesus on it. ie the bible.


Zec 5:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=2&version=kjv#2)And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof [is] twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

Zec 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)Then said he unto me, This [is] the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off [as] on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off [as] on that side according to it.

Zec 5:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=4&version=kjv#4)I will bring it forth, saith the LORD of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

Maybe this is symolic and literal of the curse of those who reject Jesus Christ, and it is we who bring Christ to the world, we the "church" mentioned above as the white horse rider in Rev 6:1.:saint:

PS, I just wanted to note, that it has taken a good deal of studying and humbling of myself just to finally admit I was wrong about who the first horseman was. I used to believe it was the AC. But after reading many things that have been posted here by others, I now realize that those who say that the first horseman is either "Christ" or the church, is right. Partly because of the fact that "immediately" after the "Lamb" that appeared as though it had been slain, is handed the scroll, He/Jesus begins to open it. ANd I believe that is Pentecost, when the horse goes out. And that is just the first seal, don't you think that God would be "patient" enough (not wanting that any should perish) to let the church do her job "until" the end of the time of the "gentiles"?

Pentecost; the believers were commanded to stay in Jerusalem UNTIL they were empowered by the Holy Spirit. That's when "they went forth conquering and to conquer". And it was and continues to be a bloodless battle (so to speak). What I mean by that is there are NO ARROWS FOR HIS BOW!!:D And he was "given" a crown. The horseman, didn't "gain" his crown through the battles of his conquering, but he was given it. And he was wearing white, as many have said, "white" apparel is used only to describe purity. Never used to describe satan.

Just some extra thoughts I wanted to share on the whole "time" issue.:saint:

God bless

moonglow
Mar 31st 2007, 02:32 PM
I just spent an hour trying to research and find any clear and obvious 'internal evidence' for the Late Date view. It is much easier finding external evidence, or at least people referring to earlier people, who refer down to Irenaeus (who was quoting Polycarp from memory)

If anyone has any good and sound late-date internal evidence verses and links, I would appreciate it.

Revelation 1

9 I, John, am your brother and your partner in suffering and in God’s Kingdom and in the patient endurance to which Jesus calls us. I was exiled to the island of Patmos for preaching the word of God and for my testimony about Jesus.

The common arguement I hear is that it was the Roman ruler Emperor Domitian (81-96 CE), that put John on Patmos...and that by this verse it shows too he and the other Christians were under persecution. Maybe this will trigger someone's memory as I can't recall the details right now...:rolleyes:

God Bless

BeOfGoodCourage
Mar 31st 2007, 03:01 PM
Here is a link I once gave that fits here in this thread as well. It gives both external and internal evidence. It is a long commentary of evidence but well worth the read for the serious student.
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.html
Do a Domitian word search with in the text and you will receive ample reward.
Once you are in the link I gave then click "Edit" on your browser, then Find (on this page), and then insert Domitian.

Saved7
Mar 31st 2007, 05:31 PM
moonglow,
while the preterist view is not "supposed" to be allowed on this board, it has been allowed many times. But partial preterism is allowed, which is in my opinion not any better.
And amills have to believe that Jesus has already returned if they claim that we are already living in the millenium. Because the millenium doesn't start until our Lord's return. Whether they realize that or not may be a different story.

Also, you are right, the destruction of Jerusalem fromt the time that Jesus mentioned it was only about 40 years at the most. But that is just the destruction of the temple, that is not the entire book of Revalation.

And as I have pointed out on many occassions here on this board, Revelation is not just a book anouncing the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is also a book announcing the judgement and destruction of all the world in all of it's wickedeness. What happened to the destruction that is supposed to take place on "the world" that the book so prominently suggests will take place? It hasn't happened yet, because as yet, the outer courts are still being trodden under foot by the gentiles. Why? Because we are still in the gentile reign, and it has yet to be judged, as stated in Rev.

BeOfGoodCourage
Mar 31st 2007, 05:51 PM
moonglow,
while the preterist view is not "supposed" to be allowed on this board, it has been allowed many times. But partial preterism is allowed, which is in my opinion not any better.
And amills have to believe that Jesus has already returned if they claim that we are already living in the millenium. Because the millenium doesn't start until our Lord's return. Whether they realize that or not may be a different story.

Also, you are right, the destruction of Jerusalem fromt the time that Jesus mentioned it was only about 40 years at the most. But that is just the destruction of the temple, that is not the entire book of Revalation.

And as I have pointed out on many occassions here on this board, Revelation is not just a book anouncing the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is also a book announcing the judgement and destruction of all the world in all of it's wickedeness. What happened to the destruction that is supposed to take place on "the world" that the book so prominently suggests will take place? It hasn't happened yet, because as yet, the outer courts are still being trodden under foot by the gentiles. Why? Because we are still in the gentile reign, and it has yet to be judged, as stated in Rev.

I'm afraid you are inserting your own private understanding as to what amills and partial preterist believe. Any one of us could show you the logic of our beliefs but instead you would rather assume instead of doing proper research.

Time and time again it has been shown here that the amill view is about an indefinite time where the church - comprised of all believers from all races on earth - is in fellowship with Christ since the cross. It is a time during which Satan has been unable to do restrain the gospel of Christ and a time during which the Church declares the Kingship of Christ. We are His ambassadors and being such we the authority of the King to back us up.

It is not until Christ returns that this period of time ends. When Satan is loosed from his binds, then and only then will he have one final attempt at deceiving the nations. This period of time is unknown to us but I believe it will only last as long as it takes to make himself known, then with swiftness Christ comes and with fire destruction comes upon all those Satan was able to influence during his little season. Satan is immediately cast into the bottomless pit and then the judgement of the world is next.

This is how the Bible protrays it but of course that view has morphed into all the other views we see out their.

moonglow
Mar 31st 2007, 05:57 PM
Saved and BeOfGoodCourage....David asked we don't debate on here so I am going to start a new thread starting with Saved7's post followed by BeOfGoodCourage and those that hold the amill or partial Preterism view can explain our views on their without distracting from David's thread...:)

I'll give it the title 'defining the amill/partial preterism view'...I think this is important to really understand each others views. Without that basic understanding we sure can't communicate well to each other on this board.

God bless

moonglow
Mar 31st 2007, 06:24 PM
ok I started a thread here: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1213133#post1213133

so we can discuss this and hopefully clear up some of the confusion on these views. :)

God bless

the rookie
Mar 31st 2007, 06:56 PM
Remember, we are solely looking at the date-written aspect of Revelation; in regards to either the early 70ish or late 96ish dates.

When John in 11:1-2 was given instructions, it was to go and measure what was presently there to measure at that time.

If that verse had said something like, 'go and survey the pile of stones that lay in front of you that used to be the temple'....then it would be an appropriate comment for a late-date writing of Revelation.

Regardless of when Revelation was written, John was told to measure the temple that was standing...nowhere does the internal evidence of Revelation mention another different temple being built, so to assume so from a futurist application, is just speculation and conjecture that is derived from that viewpoint. Not from the internal evidence only, that Revelation itself supplies.

Revelation's internal evidence, only speaks of a standing Jewish temple that John who lived in the 1st century (when a Jewish temple did actually stand in Jerusalem), is to go and measure.

Hope that is clear. I don't care to debate for or against either side. Please send me some citations and references to add though....moonglow did earlier, and I look forward to see who will submit the next set of data. I gotta go to a soccer game with my daughter for now, and can't dig into any references myself right now.

David, you are either missing my point here or not really connecting with what you are saying. You aren't objectively presenting Rev. 11:1-2 as internal evidence, you are presenting your interpretation of those verses as internal evidence that John was told to measure a still standing temple in Jerusalem. There seems to be more going on than what you are inferring, but if we can't talk about the verse, than we are left to your interpretation of it as "internal evidence".

That's what I mean when I say that the ground rules are suspect and difficult to abide by.

David Taylor
Apr 1st 2007, 12:15 AM
David, you are either missing my point here or not really connecting with what you are saying. You aren't objectively presenting Rev. 11:1-2 as internal evidence, you are presenting your interpretation of those verses as internal evidence that John was told to measure a still standing temple in Jerusalem. There seems to be more going on than what you are inferring, but if we can't talk about the verse, than we are left to your interpretation of it as "internal evidence".

That's what I mean when I say that the ground rules are suspect and difficult to abide by.

I'll try this again.

From the Early-Date perspective, Revelation 11:1-2 is internal evidence.

In other words, if you early-date Revelation, then it is internal evindece (without interpretation).

It would be no different if Revelation spoke of a destroyed temple and surrounding stone carnage.
In that case, from the Late-Date perspective, that verse would be internal evidence for that late-date perspective.

That is purely objective from that perspective (early-date).

You may misunderstand my objective.

It is to gather both internal and external references from both persepectives.

If you say 11:1-2 isn't admissable because your perspective questions it, then there can be no agreed upon internal evidence, because the other view then, has the opportunity to argue that your internal evidences are also 'interpretational'. At this point, I could care less about interpretational, I just want to gather references both internal and external from both perspectives.

When I find a clear internal evidence for the late date, (I have read a few ambigous ones so far, but not any particularly clear one that would merit inclusion beyond speculation), I will most certainly add it as well.

As for talking about the verse, if you can convince me from the early-date perspective, that that venue wouldn't receive Rev 11:1-2 as a clear and objective example of internal evidence, then I will pull it, but I really don't think you can if you are honest with it.

To re-emphasize, we are in the reference gathering stage, not the debating, arguing, or disecting stage. Please contribute...as the references grow, to a point that we have exausted all of them, then we can begin a veracious and scrutinizing examination of the merits of the evidence both views have presented.

David Taylor
Apr 1st 2007, 12:24 AM
If I were to give internal evidence, I would give all of the prophetic writings such as Isaiah or Jeremiah or Jonah, or some other prophetic book. Reason? These were all usually written sooo far in advance of the events that if indeed the book of Rev was written before or around the time of 70 AD, then it wouldn't line up with the rest of the Word of God. In that, if the return of our Lord has already occurred when amills or preterists would have us believe, then there isn't the traditional length of time between the prophecy and the actual fulfillment of the prophecies written therein.

When there is that massive of a prophecy written, in general it takes a very very long time to be fulfilled. And if you really pay attention to all that is written there in the book of Rev. then you will see that there is waaaay to much there to have ocurred in such a brief period of time. It takes time for the truth to spread, and it takes time for famine and disease to spread and whatever else, wars to be fought, and decisions by govts to be made for a "mark" that will permit only those who wear it to make purchases and sales. All of these things take time. And those are to name only a minut few. And what about this "wormwood" or this "great star" that falls to the earth, where is the evidence of those occurrances during the early church era?

Besides, we all know that God moves much slower than we do. So if you put just those to lines of thought together (time it takes to fulfill all those prophecies and time between prophecy and fulfillment), you should be able to see that there is a large span of time to be considered, that must be made when reading such a prophetic book.

And honestly, if we even consider just the first horsemen, as being the "church" or the body of Christ on earth; then you must realize that when that horse went out, it never came back. It had a job to do until the very end. And the church is still doing it's job, albeit not really well these days:rolleyes: , but still the same, doing her job.;)

And as Moonglow had posted, there are a bunch of judgements that followed after that horse, beginning with other horses. I see these as the curse that enters the homes of the theif and all those who reject our Lord. Like Moonglow pointed out, look at all of these 3rd world countries, and the muslim countries, though they have all the oil in the world, they suffer as though they are poor.
The curse I speak of IMHO is Zecheriah 5:1-4

Zec 5:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

maybe this is a scroll with the truth about Jesus on it. ie the bible.


Zec 5:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=2&version=kjv#2)And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof [is] twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

Zec 5:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=3&version=kjv#3)Then said he unto me, This [is] the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off [as] on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off [as] on that side according to it.

Zec 5:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=4&version=kjv#4)I will bring it forth, saith the LORD of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

Maybe this is symolic and literal of the curse of those who reject Jesus Christ, and it is we who bring Christ to the world, we the "church" mentioned above as the white horse rider in Rev 6:1.:saint:

PS, I just wanted to note, that it has taken a good deal of studying and humbling of myself just to finally admit I was wrong about who the first horseman was. I used to believe it was the AC. But after reading many things that have been posted here by others, I now realize that those who say that the first horseman is either "Christ" or the church, is right. Partly because of the fact that "immediately" after the "Lamb" that appeared as though it had been slain, is handed the scroll, He/Jesus begins to open it. ANd I believe that is Pentecost, when the horse goes out. And that is just the first seal, don't you think that God would be "patient" enough (not wanting that any should perish) to let the church do her job "until" the end of the time of the "gentiles"?

Pentecost; the believers were commanded to stay in Jerusalem UNTIL they were empowered by the Holy Spirit. That's when "they went forth conquering and to conquer". And it was and continues to be a bloodless battle (so to speak). What I mean by that is there are NO ARROWS FOR HIS BOW!!:D And he was "given" a crown. The horseman, didn't "gain" his crown through the battles of his conquering, but he was given it. And he was wearing white, as many have said, "white" apparel is used only to describe purity. Never used to describe satan.

Just some extra thoughts I wanted to share on the whole "time" issue.:saint:



Saved7,
I have read and re-read your reply above, and am trying to figure out just what to add to the reference list based on what you cited. I spent some time trying to understand your comments about Wormwood and the famines, etc...but what I see from how you refernced those, it appears to me you are submitting them as evidence for their occurring at the end of time instead of in the mid 1st century.

How does that, however, determine one way or the other, a early (pre-70) or late (96) time of the writing of Revelation?

In your examples, Revelation could have been written in 69 AD, and those events still occur 2500+ years in the future. Or it could have been written in 96 AD, and those events still occur 2500+ years in the future.

I don't really see how those events effect which end of the forty-year period of Revelations writing that is the root-question.

Can you help me with that? Do you see my point?

I have the same question about the Zech 5 horsemen. How do either of those verses effect or determine an early-69ish or late-96ish writing date of Revelation?

If you can explain how they provide internal evidence either way as to Revelation's writing date, I'll be glad to add them to wichever section you deem applicable.

RogerW
Apr 1st 2007, 01:09 AM
After researching the lives of Nero and Domitian it seemed rather odd to me that Nero would exile the Christian, John to Patmos, when he (Nero) was filled with such intense hatred of all Christians that sometimes simply being accused of being a Christian was enough to bring one to horrible death. I wondered if I could find any evidence to show exile was a common practice by one or both emperors. My research yielded the following information. While finding evidence that Nero was not in the habit of sparing a Christian’s life, I found no evidence that Nero sometime exiled his enemies rather than killing them. I’m not saying there is no evidence, simply that my research yielded none. However, regarding Domitian I found some evidence that banishment was a form of punishment. He even banished his own wife for a time after the death of a child. I also found that reliable evidence toward both Christians and Jews is difficult to find under Domitian. Perhaps this information may be helpful.





An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers
DIR Atlas (http://www.bibleforums.org/%20Note%201)

Nero (54-68 A.D.)

[Additional entry (http://bibleforums.org/nerox.htm) on this emperor's life is available in DIR Archives] Herbert W. Benario
Emory University
Historical evidence for Nero: “As his popularity waned, Nero and Tigellinus realized that individuals were needed who could be charged with the disaster. It so happened that there was such a group ready at hand, Christians, who had made themselves unpopular because of their refusal to worship the emperor, their way of life, and their secret meetings. Further, at this time two of their most significant "teachers" were in Rome, Peter and Paul. They were ideal scapegoats, individuals whom most Romans loathed, and who had continually sung of the forthcoming end of the world. Their destruction was planned with the utmost precision and cruelty, for the entertainment of the populace. The venue was Nero's circus near the Mons Vaticanus. Christians were exposed to wild animals and were set ablaze, smeared with pitch, to illuminate the night. The executions were so grisly that even the populace displayed sympathy for the victims. Separately, Peter was crucified upside down on the Vatican hill and Paul was beheaded along the Via Ostiensis. But Nero's attempt, and hope, to shift all suspicion of arson to others failed. His popularity even among the lower classes was irrevocably impaired.”


[B]

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors
DIR Atlas (http://www.bibleforums.org/%20Note%201)

Titus Flavius Domitianus(A.D. 81-96)

John Donahue
College of William and Mary
Historical evidence for Domitian: “Less easy to gauge is Domitian's attitude toward Christians and Jews, since reliable evidence for their persecution is difficult to find. Christians may have been among those banished or executed from time to time during the 90's, but the testimony falls short of confirming any organized program of persecution under Domitian's reign. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that Jews were made to feel uneasy under Domitian, who scrupulously collected the Jewish tax and harassed Jewish tax dodgers during much of his rule. As with Christians, such policies did not amount to persecution, but it does help to explain the Jewish fears of expulsion present in the sources.”
“An only child died young, and Domitia was probably exiled by her husband c. A.D 83. Later, she would be recalled to the palace, where she lived with Domitian until his death.”

David Taylor
Apr 1st 2007, 01:44 AM
After researching the lives of Nero and Domitian it seemed rather odd to me that Nero would exile the Christian, John to Patmos, when he (Nero) was filled with such intense hatred of all Christians that sometimes simply being accused of being a Christian was enough to bring one to horrible death. I wondered if I could find any evidence to show exile was a common practice by one or both emperors. My research yielded the following information. While finding evidence that Nero was not in the habit of sparing a Christian’s life, I found no evidence that Nero sometime exiled his enemies rather than killing them. I’m not saying there is no evidence, simply that my research yielded none. However, regarding Domitian I found some evidence that banishment was a form of punishment. He even banished his own wife for a time after the death of a child. I also found that reliable evidence toward both Christians and Jews is difficult to find under Domitian. Perhaps this information may be helpful.





An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers


DIR Atlas (http://www.bibleforums.org/%20Note%201)

Nero (54-68 A.D.)

[Additional

entry (http://bibleforums.org/nerox.htm) on this emperor's life is available in DIR Archives] Herbert W. Benario
Emory University
Historical evidence for Nero: “As his popularity waned, Nero and Tigellinus realized that individuals were needed who could be charged with the disaster. It so happened that there was such a group ready at hand, Christians, who had made themselves unpopular because of their refusal to worship the emperor, their way of life, and their secret meetings. Further, at this time two of their most significant "teachers" were in Rome, Peter and Paul. They were ideal scapegoats, individuals whom most Romans loathed, and who had continually sung of the forthcoming end of the world. Their destruction was planned with the utmost precision and cruelty, for the entertainment of the populace. The venue was Nero's circus near the Mons Vaticanus. Christians were exposed to wild animals and were set ablaze, smeared with pitch, to illuminate the night. The executions were so grisly that even the populace displayed sympathy for the victims. Separately, Peter was crucified upside down on the Vatican hill and Paul was beheaded along the Via Ostiensis. But Nero's attempt, and hope, to shift all suspicion of arson to others failed. His popularity even among the lower classes was irrevocably impaired.”


[B]

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors


DIR Atlas (http://www.bibleforums.org/%20Note%201)

Titus Flavius Domitianus(A.D. 81-96)

John Donahue


College of William and Mary
Historical evidence for Domitian: “Less easy to gauge is Domitian's attitude toward Christians and Jews, since reliable evidence for their persecution is difficult to find. Christians may have been among those banished or executed from time to time during the 90's, but the testimony falls short of confirming any organized program of persecution under Domitian's reign. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that Jews were made to feel uneasy under Domitian, who scrupulously collected the Jewish tax and harassed Jewish tax dodgers during much of his rule. As with Christians, such policies did not amount to persecution, but it does help to explain the Jewish fears of expulsion present in the sources.”
“An only child died young, and Domitia was probably exiled by her husband c. A.D 83. Later, she would be recalled to the palace, where she lived with Domitian until his death.”



Thanks Roger...the links didn't work though. Can you re-check them?
They linked back to this forum when I clicked on them.

Did you find any specific info about Domitian or Nero specific to John himself, or the Revelation/Apocalypse that would be related to its dating?

moonglow
Apr 1st 2007, 02:56 AM
After researching the lives of Nero and Domitian it seemed rather odd to me that Nero would exile the Christian, John to Patmos, when he (Nero) was filled with such intense hatred of all Christians that sometimes simply being accused of being a Christian was enough to bring one to horrible death. I wondered if I could find any evidence to show exile was a common practice by one or both emperors. My research yielded the following information. While finding evidence that Nero was not in the habit of sparing a Christian’s life, I found no evidence that Nero sometime exiled his enemies rather than killing them. I’m not saying there is no evidence, simply that my research yielded none. However, regarding Domitian I found some evidence that banishment was a form of punishment. He even banished his own wife for a time after the death of a child. I also found that reliable evidence toward both Christians and Jews is difficult to find under Domitian. Perhaps this information may be helpful.





Actually Nero didn't go after the Christians until after the great fire of Rome.

Josephus---who lived through his reign, had an audience with him & even persuaded him to release Jewish hostages on the very eve of the Jewish revolt---complained that contemporary historians favorable to Nero were "careless with the truth," while those hostile to him "shamelessly & recklessly reveled in lies" [Antiquities 20.154]. None of the early favorable portraits of Nero survive, while the hostile ones were preserved by Christian historians as proof of their belief that Nero was the Anti-Christ. Within the last generation, however, historians have developed a less one-sided reconstruction of the man.

Nero's reign was heralded as the golden age by the Senate & many in the Roman world who, influenced by oracles & prophecies, were looking for the appearance of a divine savior. The 17 year old emperor, who had been tutored in the classics by the Stoic philosopher Seneca, set out to play the part. He banned capital punishment & public spectacles focused on bloodshed. He reduced taxes & gave slaves the right to file complaints against their masters. Unlike previous emperors he did not prosecute people under the laws against treason & freely pardoned prisoners who were arrested for sedition, including his own critics. To fill the entertainment void left by the absence of gladiators, he sponsored theater, athletics & poetry contests. And he gave the Senate greater freedom than at any time since before the rise of Julius Caesar.

The benign laissez-faire image that Nero cultivated in public, however, did not extend to his private life. He murdered his mother (59 CE)---who herself had poisoned most of his potential rivals--- & his first wife [Octavia, the daughter of Claudius]. He gained a reputation for a scandalously libertine night-life in the streets of Rome that shocked Roman aristocrats. Freed from his domineering mother, he began to give public recitals (poetry & lyre), stage performances & chariot races. In his last years he dabbled in eastern mystery cults. Yet, by 62 CE, influenced by the dilettante patrician Gaius Petronius [author of the Satyricon] & Ofonius Tigellinus [head of the Praetorian guard] Nero abandoned himself to extravagant orgies, while his secret police plunged Rome into a new reign of terror. While posing as benefactor of the people, Nero was blind to their real needs.

He responded to a fire that devastated Rome (64 CE) by using the ground to build the largest palace ever designed with a colossal gilded statue [120 ft. high] of himself as the sun god. It was so widely rumored among the people that Nero or Tigellinus had deliberately set the fire to build his palace that [according to Tacitus] he blamed Christians, many of whom were arrested & tortured to death. According to early Christian tradition, the apostles Peter & Paul both died in this persecution.

Dismayed at Nero's wasteful extravagance, even his tutor Seneca joined a group of Roman nobles who conspired to murder him. Yet when the plot was exposed
(64 CE), Nero sentenced less than half the conspirators to death. In late 66 CE he began a tour of religious shrines in Greece as a barefoot pilgrim. Returning to Rome in 68 CE he established the cult of Apollo in Rome, freed slaves & bestowed money freely on the people. Such irresponsible extravagance inspired the Senate & army to rebel. Even the Praetorian guard abandoned him. Forced to flee Rome, he committed suicide at age 31. The political chaos after his death ended the dynasty of the Caesars.

Among Christians Nero became infamous for torturing Christians for the fire that devastated Rome. But towards Romans, Jews & others he was often far less a tyrant than his predecessors. He was obviously self-centered, irresponsible & easily dominated by others whose political designs were less than idyllic. Yet, the historical Nero was not as much a malevolent monster as his uncle, Caligula. In the end he alienated the Roman army & aristocracy not so much for his cruelty but for squandering the imperial wealth & posing as benefactor of those people whom Rome had spent centuries conquering & dominating.

References: Josephus, Antiquities 20.150-162, 182-184, 194-195, 252-259.
_____, War 1.20-23; 2.248-253; 3.1-8; 4.491-497.
Tacitus, Annals 13.1-5, 12-21, 25, 29, 31, 34, 45-52;
14.1-16, 20-22, 39, 50- 65; 15.18, 22-23, 33-74;
16.1-3, 6-8, 10-11, 14, 18-26, 30.
Suetonius, Twelve Caesars: Nero
Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.31-35; 61.1-21; 62.13-29; 63.1-29
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 4.44

Other resources on line:

The Annals by Tacitus - Books 13-16 chronicle events from 54-66 CE [archived in Bruce Butterfield's Ancient History, Archaeology & Biblical Studies].

The Life of Nero - Latin text of Suetonius' hostile biography with Rolfe's English translation from 1914 Loeb Library edition [archived in Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius].

De Vita Caesarum: Nero - again Rolfe's translation of Suetonius in Paul Halsall's Internet Ancient History Sourcebook [Fordham U].

Nero - Herbert W. Benario's well-documented biography in the inter-academic historical encyclopedia De Imperatoribus Romanis [see also David Coffta's briefer balanced assessment in DIR's archive].

Nero - well-illustrated & thoroughly annotated article in Wikipedia's web surveys all aspects of the controversial emperor's career & legacy.

Domus Aurea - RomeGuide's capsule biography of Nero with map & diagram of his massive palace.

Domus Aurea (Golden House of Nero) - Leo Curran posts photos of remains of the largest palace ever built (U of Buffalo).

I can't give a direct link to this information...I got it off of this site: http://virtualreligion.net/iho/rome.html

Then you have to click on Nero.

I wonder if Josephus mentions John? I know I have read someone attempted to kill him once by boiling him in oil. :( It seems Nero was pretty much all over the place in how he handled people...one day killing the next letting go...werid stuff. Was John a Jew by the way or a gentile? I read up on Caligula and am wondering (not sure on the dating here at all) if he could have put John on that island? I don't really find alot of information on him in regards to cruelity towards Christians and only read he made all the Jews leave Rome at one point because of the conflict going on in their religion due to Christianity. I need some dates though...the time of Christ, and year they think He was killed, rose and ascended...dating on the first churches as to compare to who was the ruler of Rome at that time.

God bless

quiet dove
Apr 1st 2007, 02:59 AM
Did you find any specific info about Domitian or Nero specific to John himself, or the Revelation/Apocalypse that would be related to its dating?


I have not spent time researching on this site, it looks like it is about the Roman Empire, maybe you could find something you are looking for, but I dont know because I havent looked in reguards to John

http://www.roman-empire.net/

I dont know why the link is not working, but I have this in my favorites and it is not working there either??????????????

David Taylor
Apr 1st 2007, 12:01 PM
Thanks.
I just read through it, and found some specific stuff from both Nero and Domitian on the persecution of Christians and Jews under their reigns, but nothing specific to John or to the writing of Revelation. The website seems to take a more secular historical approach, so it doesn't have alot of focus on the biblical references that would help venue Revelation's writing date. If anyone else finds anything within it I missed, post back.

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 1st 2007, 01:06 PM
Credit for the following:
Steve Gregg - "Revelation, Four Views"

"In favor of the earlier date of writing (during Nero's persecution), several internal evidences are adduced. Among them would be the apparent existence of the temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing (11:1-2), and the tension between the church and its Jewish detractors (e.g. 2:9;3:9), both of which, it is argued, changed when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70)." (Revelation, p.15)

"One of the most important arguments for a Neronean date is based upon the cryptic passage in Revelation 17:10, which speaks of the king currently reigning at the time of writing: "There are also seven kings. Five are fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time." Unless the term "kings" here is taken as "kingdoms" (i.e., Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome), the natural understanding of this statement would be that five Roman emperors had fallen, and the sixth was reigning at the time of writing. Since Nero was the sixth man to be recognized as emperor of the Roman Empire, this would place the date of writing sometime within his reign." (Revelation, p.15)

"It may also be pointed out that many scholars, including those supportive of the late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domition's reign" (Revelation, p.16)

"The loss of love in Ephesus is a condition which can happen to a church in a very short time, as the experience of many modern congregations can demonstrate. Paul marveled at how the Galatian church had so severely regressed almost immediately after he had left them as infant congregations" (Revelation, p.16)

"Notably, Polycarp does not state that the church in Smyrna did not exist in Paul's lifetime, but that the Syrman had not known the Lord at the time when Paul wrote his epistle to the Philippians, which was probably no later than A.D. 63, which allows sufficient time for the church to come into existence in Smyrna before or during the Neronean persecution." (Revelation, p.17)

"The foregoing internal evidence we have considered for the late date of Revelation has been ambiguous at best." (Revelation, p.17)

"Several church fathers indicate that Domition was emperor when John wrote Revelation. All of them, however, seem to base their information on the testimony of Irenaeus" (Revelation, p.17)

RogerW
Apr 1st 2007, 04:52 PM
This should be a working link. It too though is from historical worldly perspective.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm

RW

RogerW
Apr 1st 2007, 05:15 PM
Credit for the following:
Steve Gregg - "Revelation, Four Views"

"In favor of the earlier date of writing (during Nero's persecution), several internal evidences are adduced. Among them would be the apparent existence of the temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing (11:1-2), and the tension between the church and its Jewish detractors (e.g. 2:9;3:9), both of which, it is argued, changed when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70)." (Revelation, p.15)

"One of the most important arguments for a Neronean date is based upon the cryptic passage in Revelation 17:10, which speaks of the king currently reigning at the time of writing: "There are also seven kings. Five are fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time." Unless the term "kings" here is taken as "kingdoms" (i.e., Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome), the natural understanding of this statement would be that five Roman emperors had fallen, and the sixth was reigning at the time of writing. Since Nero was the sixth man to be recognized as emperor of the Roman Empire, this would place the date of writing sometime within his reign." (Revelation, p.15)

"It may also be pointed out that many scholars, including those supportive of the late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domition's reign" (Revelation, p.16)

"The loss of love in Ephesus is a condition which can happen to a church in a very short time, as the experience of many modern congregations can demonstrate. Paul marveled at how the Galatian church had so severely regressed almost immediately after he had left them as infant congregations" (Revelation, p.16)

"Notably, Polycarp does not state that the church in Smyrna did not exist in Paul's lifetime, but that the Syrman had not known the Lord at the time when Paul wrote his epistle to the Philippians, which was probably no later than A.D. 63, which allows sufficient time for the church to come into existence in Smyrna before or during the Neronean persecution." (Revelation, p.17)

"The foregoing internal evidence we have considered for the late date of Revelation has been ambiguous at best." (Revelation, p.17)

"Several church fathers indicate that Domition was emperor when John wrote Revelation. All of them, however, seem to base their information on the testimony of Irenaeus" (Revelation, p.17)

I know that this is a time for gathering info, and not for debate, but John being told to measure the temple (Rev 11:1-2) is often used as proof text for early dating because the temple was still standing when John wrote the Revelation. We need to remember that John is seeing visions. These visions don't necessarily mean the things being shown in the vision are literal. For example we see the birth of Christ in Rev 12, does that mean that John is literally seeing Christ being born? Does John see a literal red dragon ready to devour the child as soon as He is born? Does John literally see Satan cast out of heaven to the earth? You see what I mean?

I am of the opinion that the Revelation of Jesus Christ covers all of human history, and not only the period of the NT era. Therefore I believe many of the visions John is given are in fact of things that have happened before the cross as well as things happening in John's time period, and things that will happen throughout the NT era.

I would also not be to quick to discount the testimony of Irenaeus since he was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. This is a very close relationship for us to call ambiguous at best.

RW

RogerW
Apr 1st 2007, 06:10 PM
Just wanted to show additional record showing confidence in the statements by Irenaeus.

(Speaking of Polycarp) His pupil Irenæus gives us one of the very few portraits of an apostolic man which are to be found in antiquity, in a few sentences which are a picture: “I could describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught; his going out and coming in; the whole tenor of his life; his personal appearance; how he would speak of the conversations he had held with John and with others who had seen the Lord. How did he make mention of their words and of whatever he had heard from them respecting the Lord.”

Of Polycarp’s life little is known, but that little is highly interesting. Irenæus was his disciple, and tells us that “Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ” (Adv. Hær., iii. 3; Euseb. Hist. Eccl., iv. 14).

Thermodynamics
Apr 3rd 2007, 02:59 AM
Great post David! I do want to correct one small historic error if I may:


Some Benchmark Dates of the Era:
Crucifixion of Christ (circa 33 A.D.)
I & 2 Corinthians written (circa mid 50s A.D.)
Caesar Nero (54-68 A.D.)
Ephesians written (mid 60s A.D.)
Caesar Vespasian (70-79 A.D.)
Masada Conquered (73 A.D.)
Caesar Domitian (81-96 A.D.)
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons dies (202 A.D.)

Vespasian began his rule in AD 69 not AD 70, sorry, but I am a history geek.:)

dworthington
Apr 6th 2007, 12:19 AM
Foxe's Book of Myrtrs (sp) says that Domitian put John in boiling oil and when that didn't kill him, banished him to Patmos.

third hero
Apr 6th 2007, 11:05 PM
Foxe's Book of Myrtrs (sp) says that Domitian put John in boiling oil and when that didn't kill him, banished him to Patmos.

This, right along with Polycarp's testimony of John being exiled to Patmos by Domitian, and Iraneus's testimony of Polycarp saying that Domitian put him in boiling oil but John lived through it brings me to the same conclusion that the majority of the church leadership at that time believed, that Revelations was written around 94-96AD.

third hero
Apr 6th 2007, 11:11 PM
I'll try this again.

From the Early-Date perspective, Revelation 11:1-2 is internal evidence.

In other words, if you early-date Revelation, then it is internal evindece (without interpretation).

It would be no different if Revelation spoke of a destroyed temple and surrounding stone carnage.
In that case, from the Late-Date perspective, that verse would be internal evidence for that late-date perspective.

That is purely objective from that perspective (early-date).

You may misunderstand my objective.

It is to gather both internal and external references from both persepectives.

If you say 11:1-2 isn't admissable because your perspective questions it, then there can be no agreed upon internal evidence, because the other view then, has the opportunity to argue that your internal evidences are also 'interpretational'. At this point, I could care less about interpretational, I just want to gather references both internal and external from both perspectives.

When I find a clear internal evidence for the late date, (I have read a few ambigous ones so far, but not any particularly clear one that would merit inclusion beyond speculation), I will most certainly add it as well.

As for talking about the verse, if you can convince me from the early-date perspective, that that venue wouldn't receive Rev 11:1-2 as a clear and objective example of internal evidence, then I will pull it, but I really don't think you can if you are honest with it.

To re-emphasize, we are in the reference gathering stage, not the debating, arguing, or disecting stage. Please contribute...as the references grow, to a point that we have exausted all of them, then we can begin a veracious and scrutinizing examination of the merits of the evidence both views have presented.

I would have to disagree, because Ezekiel was told to measure a temple as well, although by the time he received that prophecy, the temple was clearly gone. So, Revelation 11 has to be interpreted as John literally going from Patmos to Jerusalem to measure a temple that is still standing. Remember, in Revelation 21, John receives the measurements of New Jerusalem, which no man has ever seen.

Therefore, Revelation 11 can not be presented as evidence asto the writing of the book. The better method, in your case, would be to use the riddle of the seven kings, which plays right into the hands of those who believe that Revelation was written prior to 70AD. Just have to be honest in this case, although I still believe that Revelation was written after 70AD.