Author Topic: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero  (Read 552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Just Asking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« on: Wed Nov 30, 2016 - 19:30:42 »
... not in the reign of Domitian.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« on: Wed Nov 30, 2016 - 19:30:42 »

Offline dpr

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #1 on: Wed Feb 08, 2017 - 09:37:55 »
Revelation was written in the time of emperor Domitian, around 96 A.D.


Offline Just Asking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #2 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 08:54:35 »
Late Date:
Victorinus (c. 280)
Eusebius (c. 320)

Early Date:
Muratorian Canon (c. 200)
Tertullian (c. 200)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 200)
Acts of John (c. 175)
Syriac History of John (c. 350)
Tyconius (c. 380)

Ambiguous:
Irenaeus (c. 180)
Origen (c.220)

So why settle for the late date? For what reasons?
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 08:58:25 by Just Asking »

Offline TonkaTim

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Manna: 64
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #3 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 09:48:44 »
This article makes many valid points for the late dating of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written

Offline Just Asking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #4 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 10:56:08 »
The article largely amounts to
1. Ignoring the ambiguity in Irenaeus which makes it unclear whether John or the apocalyptic vision was seen in Domitian's reign.

2. Taking Eusebius' interpretation of 'the tyrant' as true while ignoring the chronological clues for the account found in Chrysostom and the Acts of John, as well as the internal clues from Clement's passage, which make Eusebius' interpretation virtually impossible.

3. Misrepresenting the significance of 666 by erroneously inferring that the form 'Caesar Nero' is contrived, even though it appears in ancient inscriptions, while failing to note that the spelling of Nero without the yod is anciently attested. Also, since Zahn wrote, medieval Latin commentaries have been published which demonstrate that the number was held as computed in Hebrew. The article also fails to mention the textual variant 616--representing the Latin spelling of Caesar Nero in Hebrew.

These kinds of articles are not supposed to be serious interactions with the evidence. They are supposed to be a quick spoon feeding for those who just want to confirm what they have already decided. Have you read Gentry?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #4 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 10:56:08 »



Offline dpr

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #5 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 13:29:27 »
No ambiguity in Irenaeus here; that article offers solid proof of emperor Domitian as the one existing when John penned Revelation.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Indeed, the Preterist doctrines of men are 'bizzare', and not Biblically accurate, for if Revelation was written to point to Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D., and not for the end of this world, then it would mean Christ Jesus would have returned to this earth back in 70 A.D. and built the temple of Zechariah 6, for Jesus Christ is That BRANCH.

There are so many end time prophecies that were never fulfilled in 70 A.D. that it really makes Preterist doctrine look ludicrous, and a thinking of mad men.

Offline Just Asking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #6 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 14:16:13 »
Denying the ambiguity won't make it go away. Do you even know where the ambiguity is, or why it is considered ambiguous? Have you read Gentry's discussion of it, or are you just reacting? What's preterism got to do with anything? Why bring that up? You have me thinking your insistence on the late date is more to do with scoring points against preterism than with evidence for a late date.
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 14:21:07 by Just Asking »

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Manna: 12
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #7 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 15:49:22 »
dpr  -  You really need to check out the evidence for Nero being the reigning emperor at the time John drafted Revelation. 

Solid evidence is there in the ancient Syriac Peshitta version's title page for Revelation.  Have you seen this?  I quote: " The revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor NERO."  No ambiguity there at all.

Irenaeus does not stipulate in his famous quote as to whether John was seen or the apocalyptic vision was seen in Domitian's reign.  The scribe who translated Irenaeus into Latin inserted his own preference when he interpreted what was seen.  The original Greek that Irenaeus wrote this statement in has no word for what was seen - the referrent has to be assumed.  And every historian quoting Irenaeus since then has made the same assumption, including yourself.   

In addition, since Nero's birth name was "Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus", there have been historians, (Severus, Orosius, etc.) who have mistakenly confused Nero's "Domitius" or "Domitianou" with the later "Titus Flavius Domitianus", son of Vespasian.  The resulting confusion hs been passed down to later generations and has continued to muddy the waters of Revelation's study today.

It is much safer to rely on internal testimony for the dating of this book.  And there is ample internal evidence and cross-referencing with the rest of scripture to show that Revelation was written in late AD 59 to early AD 60.  I have attempted to lay out the evidence for this on this website and others, for those who are willing to devote the time necessary to seriously study this issue.

Just as an aside to your Zechariah 6 reference, the BRANCH in Zech. 6 is speaking of Jesus (or Joshua) the son of Josedec the high priest, who became the crowned high priest in the rebuilt temple of Zerubbabel after the post-exilic return.  This temple prophesied by Ezekiel was already built long ago under Zerubbabel's hands, and was eventually renovated extensively by Herod.  Here are the LXX verses in Jeremiah 23:5-6 that foretell how Josedec, (Jesus / Joshua's father), would also be designated as the BRANCH.  "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will raise up to David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and understand, and shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth.  In his days both Juda shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell securely: and this is his name, which the Lord shall call him, JOSEDEC among the prophets."  Jesus / Joshua shared in his father's name of THE BRANCH, and the post-exilic remnant that returned did finally come to enjoy periods of peace and prosperity under the Medo-Persians, led by Jesus / Joshua's rule as high priest.

Offline TonkaTim

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Manna: 64
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #8 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 16:20:39 »
Solid evidence is there in the ancient Syriac Peshitta version's title page for Revelation.  Have you seen this?  I quote: " The revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor NERO."

Could you provide a source on this & the dating please. It is my understanding the early Syriac texts did not include the Revelation of Jesus Christ among other books as well.

Offline Just Asking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #9 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 16:28:13 »


In addition, since Nero's birth name was "Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus", there have been historians, (Severus, Orosius, etc.) who have mistakenly confused Nero's "Domitius" or "Domitianou" with the later "Titus Flavius Domitianus", son of Vespasian.  The resulting confusion hs been passed down to later generations and has continued to muddy the waters of Revelation's study today.
This claim was made by Robert Young (who was not a trained scholar) and has been repeated from time to time by non-scholarly books. It doesn't have a shred of evidence for it. Emperors didn't use their birth names but their imperial names, and besides, Nero had an adopted name. No-one would have referred to him as Domitius. Josephus uses the same expression as Irenaeus and was undoubtedly referring to Domitian. Irenaeus was talking about when John was seen by the elders, and it was at the end of Domitian's reign.

Offline Just Asking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #10 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 16:35:09 »
Solid evidence is there in the ancient Syriac Peshitta version's title page for Revelation.  Have you seen this?  I quote: " The revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor NERO."

Could you provide a source on this & the dating please. It is my understanding the early Syriac texts did not include the Revelation of Jesus Christ among other books as well.

The information can be found in Koester, Revelation: A New Translation, 72. He states that two Syriac versions of Revelation dating from as early as the fourth century make John to have been banished by Nero. The fourth-century Syriac History of John does the same.

Offline TonkaTim

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Manna: 64
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #11 on: Sun Feb 12, 2017 - 22:47:20 »

Offline dpr

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #12 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 12:15:31 »
dpr  -  You really need to check out the evidence for Nero being the reigning emperor at the time John drafted Revelation. 

Solid evidence is there in the ancient Syriac Peshitta version's title page for Revelation.  Have you seen this?  I quote: " The revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor NERO."  No ambiguity there at all.

Irenaeus does not stipulate in his famous quote as to whether John was seen or the apocalyptic vision was seen in Domitian's reign.  The scribe who translated Irenaeus into Latin inserted his own preference when he interpreted what was seen.  The original Greek that Irenaeus wrote this statement in has no word for what was seen - the referrent has to be assumed.  And every historian quoting Irenaeus since then has made the same assumption, including yourself.   

In addition, since Nero's birth name was "Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus", there have been historians, (Severus, Orosius, etc.) who have mistakenly confused Nero's "Domitius" or "Domitianou" with the later "Titus Flavius Domitianus", son of Vespasian.  The resulting confusion hs been passed down to later generations and has continued to muddy the waters of Revelation's study today.

It is much safer to rely on internal testimony for the dating of this book.  And there is ample internal evidence and cross-referencing with the rest of scripture to show that Revelation was written in late AD 59 to early AD 60.  I have attempted to lay out the evidence for this on this website and others, for those who are willing to devote the time necessary to seriously study this issue.

Just as an aside to your Zechariah 6 reference, the BRANCH in Zech. 6 is speaking of Jesus (or Joshua) the son of Josedec the high priest, who became the crowned high priest in the rebuilt temple of Zerubbabel after the post-exilic return.  This temple prophesied by Ezekiel was already built long ago under Zerubbabel's hands, and was eventually renovated extensively by Herod.  Here are the LXX verses in Jeremiah 23:5-6 that foretell how Josedec, (Jesus / Joshua's father), would also be designated as the BRANCH.  "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will raise up to David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and understand, and shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth.  In his days both Juda shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell securely: and this is his name, which the Lord shall call him, JOSEDEC among the prophets."  Jesus / Joshua shared in his father's name of THE BRANCH, and the post-exilic remnant that returned did finally come to enjoy periods of peace and prosperity under the Medo-Persians, led by Jesus / Joshua's rule as high priest.

Only Jesus Christ is The BRANCH, as shown in Isaiah also (Isa.11; Jer.23). There has been NO king of Israel from the house of David upon a throne in Jerusalem since king Zedekiah whom Nebuchadnezzar killed in Babylon.

This has NEVER happened to this day:

Jer 23:5-8
5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;

8 But, The LORD liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.
KJV


That Scripture is about the future event of Christ's coming and gathering of both the house of Israel (ten lost tribes) and the house of Judah (Jews) back together in the holy lands. It's obvious that not all of Israel has been gathered back to the holy lands yet, even as a 1st grader can easily see today.

Well, you just make up too many things for me to care about continuing this conversation with the likes of you.

Offline TonkaTim

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Manna: 64
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #13 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 13:06:36 »
That Scripture is about the future event of Christ's coming and gathering of both the house of Israel (ten lost tribes) and the house of Judah (Jews) back together in the holy lands..


Dear brother dpr, Have you considered these two verses that Jesus declared?

Jesus said: "31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." John 12


All, not just the 'gentiles'. All, that includes the lost tribes who are lost among the gentiles. The gathering begins at the Cross.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 13:10:53 by TonkaTim »

Offline dpr

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #14 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 13:48:28 »
That Scripture is about the future event of Christ's coming and gathering of both the house of Israel (ten lost tribes) and the house of Judah (Jews) back together in the holy lands..


Dear brother dpr, Have you considered these two verses that Jesus declared?

Jesus said: "31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." John 12


All, not just the 'gentiles'. All, that includes the lost tribes who are lost among the gentiles. The gathering begins at the Cross.

There's other verses too that could suggest that, yet at the same time they do not omit a future physical return of our Lord Jesus and gathering to Him.

In John 14 is the rest of what Jesus was pointing in John 12 about that prince...

John 14:30
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
KJV


That is Satan our Lord Jesus was speaking of. He is coming... to earth where we are, and that will be the final Antichrist at the end. That's why Jesus just warned us right there with, "for the prince of this world cometh". That casting out is revealed literally in the Revelation 12:7 forward verses.


Offline Just Asking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Revelation was written in the reign of Nero
« Reply #15 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 15:23:21 »
Can you guys please respect the topic of the thread--it isn't preterism or the second coming.