Author Topic: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*  (Read 63 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8541
  • Manna: 659
  • Back to 11. Considering 12 to be out the door.

Can it be proven that Domitian did not banish John to Patmos?

Was he truly a great persecutor of Christians or merely a tyrant against those he did not trust?

What we know:

He was the roman emperor from September 14, 81 AD  until September 18, 96 AD When he died at the ripe old age of 44. BY assassination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domitian#:~:text=Domitian%20%28%2F%20d%C9%99%CB%88m%C9%AA%CA%83%C9%99n%2C%20-%20i%C9%99n%20%2F%3B%20Latin%3A%20Domitianus%3B,and%20the%20last%20member%20of%20the%20Flavian%20dynasty.

What we are researching is to find a definitive time line.

Regarding John and Domitian:

Some parts of John's life are not clear and historical sources claim that he was a leader of the church at Ephesus. Eventually, he was captured in a persecution campaign by the Roman Emperor Domitian.

https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/john-exiled-to-patmos/

Emperor Domitian, the self-proclaimed “Lord and God” and ruthless dictator, reigned from AD 81 to 96. He was the son of Emperor Vespasian and the brother of Titus, the conquerors of Jerusalem in AD 70. Late in life, Domitian become very superstitious. In fact, on the day before he was murdered, he consulted an astrologer

This article will examine several aspects of Domitian’s reign and John’s exile to Patmos.

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/new-testament-era/3080-the-king-and-i-the-apostle-john-and-emperor-domitian-part-1


Eusebius also quotes Irenaeus, who claimed Domitian’s persecution consisted only of John’s banishment to Patmos and the exile of other Christians to the island of Pontia (CH 3.18.1, 5).

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/post-biblical-period/domitian-persecution-of-christians/?mqsc=E4130537&dk=ZE1150ZF0&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDDaily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=5_3_21_Who_Was_%20Phoebe





Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Manna: 26
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*
« Reply #1 on: Tue May 04, 2021 - 19:08:16 »
Hi Rella,

All the research in the world is a moot point if the internal evidence in Revelation doesn’t agree with it. 

I like digging into history as well as you do, but in this case, I would agree with your last link (Wilson) that Domitian’s reputed persecution of the Christians has been historically inflated in scope. 

But instead of trying to figure out which emperor was reigning when Revelation was being written, we should be asking which of the seven “kings of the earth” (a term Christ used for Jerusalem’s high priests in Matt. 17:25) was then serving as John was writing.  This was the one former high priest of the 7 “kings of the earth” who “IS” still presently alive as John was writing Rev. 17:10. 

One of these 7 high priest “kings of the earth” had not yet come into office for that abbreviated “SHORT SPACE” of time.  This was going to be Ananas ben Annas, who would be kicked out of his appointed office of high priest after only serving 3 months in AD 63.   Meaning Revelation had to have been written prior to Ananas’s high priestly appointment in AD 63.

Revelation 17:8 described the brief period of re-instated existence for that Scarlet Beast (with its eight high priest “kings”).  This Scarlet Beast was “ABOUT TO ARISE out of the abyss and go into destruction” soon after John wrote his apocalypse.

I’ve discussed these seven and eighth “kings of the earth” (the high priests of the land of Israel) on several posts before.  They were the eight high priest members of the family of Annas, serving in turn almost continuously from AD 6 through AD 66.  Theophilus was the one former high priest who was still alive (the one who “IS” when John was writing).  We know Theophilus was still alive because Luke was writing to this former high priest, the “most excellent Theophilus”, some time around AD 62. 

Since no high priest “kings of the earth” have ever served since the end of AD 70, that means Revelation’s prophecies that mentioned those “kings of the earth” were describing events that would take place while there were still high priests around to perform those activities.  Meaning Revelation had to have been written sometime before AD 70’s end with its destruction of the high priesthood. 

One point that is confusing your link’s authors is the number of those with the name of “John” serving in the early church.  There was the elder “John surnamed Mark” who I believe was probably the one serving in the Ephesian church after AD 70 had come and gone.

Then there was “John Eleazar” (the resurrected Lazarus), the “beloved disciple” who wrote the book of Revelation, and who survived being boiled in oil by the Ephesian governor at Nero’s orders.  (Duh, you can’t kill resurrected people.) 

Neither of these two men named John should be confused with the other disciple John, the son of Zebedee, who was martyred as well as his brother James.   John son of Zebedee was NOT the one known as the “beloved disciple”.  We can prove this by studying John 21.

It appears that confusion has historically reigned over just which of these men named “John” was being credited as the author of Revelation.  Which consequently confuses the dating of Revelation also.

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8541
  • Manna: 659
  • Back to 11. Considering 12 to be out the door.
Re: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*
« Reply #2 on: Wed May 05, 2021 - 10:00:51 »


Too many historical accounts name Domitian as the one who banished John to Patmos.

It was not just Irenaeus, who claimed Domitian’s persecution consisted only of John’s banishment to Patmos and the exile of other Christians to the island of Pontia .

And before you jump to the conclusion that Iraneius was wrong, or others were just saying what Iraneus said....... the following shows we have the same information from four ancient sources... every one of which included at least some details that none of the others contained.

Also 3 Resurections... see what Victornius said about the 7 kings.   


Iraneus said:

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.


(Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, paragraph 3.

Victornius said:

And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings. He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian 


(Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 10:11, translated by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. From Ante-Nicean Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1994 vol 7.)

We need to notice two details in this statement. Victorinus said that when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian, and that John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse. Since Irenaeus did not state either of these details, they are conclusive proof that this statement by Victorinus was based on information other than the statement by Irenaeus.


He also wrote:

And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he is come, he will be for a short time. The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written Domitian, to wit.  The other has not yet come, speaks of Nerva; and when he is come, he will be for a short time, for he did not complete the period of two years.


(Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 17:10, tran. by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. From Ante-Nicean Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1994 vol 7.)

In addition to

Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John says:

(note: see link https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VIII/Apocrypha_of_the_New_Testament/Acts_of_the_Holy_Apostle_and_Evangelist_John_the_Theologian#:~:text=Acts%20of%20the%20Holy%20Apostle%20and%20Evangelist%20John,banished%2C%20and%20at%20length%20scattered%20up%20and%20down.)

Again, the Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John gives a long and detailed account of Johns arrest and trial, including the fact that Domitian was the son of Vespasian and reigned after him. And then it says, And when all were glorifying God, and wondering at the faith of John, Domitian said to him: I have put forth a decree of the senate, that all such persons should be summarily dealt with, without trial; but since I find from thee that they are innocent, and that their religion is rather beneficial, I banish thee to an island, that I may not seem myself to do away with my own decrees.

(Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John, author unknown, translated by Alexander Walker, Esq. From Ante-Nicean Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1994, vol 8.)

This is thought to have been written sometime during the second century.



Jerome said:

In addition to this, in the Post-Nicene period Jerome said concerning John that In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lords passion and was buried near the same city.


 (Lives of Illustrious Men, by Jerome, chapter 9. - From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol.3.)

We must notice that none of the three earlier accounts mentioned John returning to Ephesus under Pertinax. Thus, Jeromes account was based, at least in part, on information that did not come from any of the three ante-Nicene accounts we have examined. So now we have the same information from four ancient sources, every one of which included at least some details that none of the others contained. (None of the other accounts also mentioned Domatian's acts having been annulled by the senate or his excessive cruelty, but as these were commonly known facts of history, they would not have needed to come from information specifically about John.)

Jerome also said , John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future.

Sulpitius Severus said,

Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.


(The Sacred History Of Sulpitius Severus, book 2, chapter 31. - From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 11.)








Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Manna: 26
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*
« Reply #3 on: Wed May 05, 2021 - 10:56:02 »
Hi Rella,

Irenaeus was not writing under inspiration.  He definitely got Jesus’ age at death incorrect, we know that much. 

Neither were the rest of the historians you are quoting writing under inspiration.  John’s Revelation and its internal evidence take precedence over any other historian’s writings.  All of whom were merely repeating Irenaeus’s earlier statements, and adding their own embellishments to what they THINK he was writing.  (Some of which is mistranslated).   A mere repetition does not add to the proof of what these men merely tried to duplicate.  (The mainstream media  today purposefully does the same thing in repeating talking points, to try to get people to believe their “news” reports.)

These historians are all confusing the activities of one particular John with those of another different John.  Even Papias acknowledged a “disciple John” as separate and distinguished from a “Presbyter John”.  (See Eusebius’s Church History quoting the writings of Papias, who wrote about his studying under those who learned directly from the Apostles themselves.)

None of these historians you are quoting are recognizing that the title “kings of the earth” applied to the high priests of Israel, as Christ referred to them in Matthew 17:25 by that title.  These “kings of the earth” / high priests were not the same thing as the single “Antichrist”, or even one of the “many antichrists” who at the time had already come out from among those I John was being written to.  Different characters and subject altogether.  Let’s not conflate the two.

Many Preterists also make the mistake of trying to identify the 7 “kings of the earth” as the emperors of Rome.  They are all wrong on this.  The emperors of Rome fall into the category of the “kings of the whole HABITABLE WORLD” (oikoumene) which is NOT the same as the “kings of the EARTH” (tes ges - the land of ISRAEL).  Revelation 16:14 distinguishes between these two different kinds of “kings”, which were BOTH deceived by the spirits of devils at the time.
« Last Edit: Wed May 05, 2021 - 18:26:44 by 3 Resurrections »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13454
  • Manna: 363
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*
« Reply #4 on: Wed May 05, 2021 - 15:19:16 »
These “kings of the earth” / high priests were not the same thing as the single “Antichrist”, or even one of the “many antichrists” who at the time had already come out from among those I John was being written to.  Different characters and subject altogether.  Let’s not conflate the two.
Just a quick note on this - there are actually two different words translated anti-christ in some Bibles.

One is pseudo-christs, which is to say people pretending to be the Christ. 

The other is properly anti-christ, which is not a false Christ, but someone who acknowledges the true Christ, and claims to act in the capacity of a regent, on Christ's behalf.  Sort of a Vicarius Christi, you might say. ::whistle::

Jarrod

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*
« Reply #4 on: Wed May 05, 2021 - 15:19:16 »



Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Manna: 26
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*
« Reply #5 on: Wed May 05, 2021 - 16:56:31 »
Hi Jarrod,

At the risk of veering off-topic, yes, you are right about there being a subtle distinction between a “pseudo” (false) Christ and an “anti” (against, or instead of) Christ.  This is something I was also aware of.

But all of these meanings applied to the 1st-century Zealot aspirants to Daniel 9’s prophesied Messiah role.  Both the “pseudo” and the “anti” Christs denied that Jesus had already come in the flesh and fulfilled Daniel’s  prophecy of the coming Messiah the Prince.  Some Zealot leaders claimed that THEY were the fulfillment of Messiah the Prince.  Other Zealots aligned themselves in support of the false Christs that arose in those first-century days. 

The manifestation of this “Messiah the Prince” was a prophecy with a specific year attached to it.  AD 30, to be exact.  So the “pseudo” Christs and the substitute “anti” Christs were trying to lay claim to Daniel’s Messiah role as close to that AD 30 year as possible, so that their claim would be plausible for their fellow Israelites who knew their Daniel scriptures as well.  Meaning those verses about The Antichrist and the antichrists are long since fulfilled, and not to be anticipated in our future.

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8541
  • Manna: 659
  • Back to 11. Considering 12 to be out the door.
Re: 3 Resurrections : If this be fake news, can you prove it. *Domitian*
« Reply #6 on: Thu May 06, 2021 - 09:42:45 »
3 R,

Not leaving this subject.

Have people coming for the weekend so I will continue MY research next week.

Happy Mother's day to your wife.

 

     
anything