He is indeed.
The Jesuit Roots of Preterism
- Thread starter Victoria
- Start date
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@civic, @Victoria , @Red Baker and anyone else following this.
I have known @3 Resurrections for many years now, starting in another forum and eventually to this one.
One thing I state. I am not a preterist, nor a partial preterist by any stretch and 3Rs and I have gone back and forth many times.
I have been looking for affirmative 95AD dating confirmation for Revelation for years.... The ancient historians talk in circles and
we actually have no definitive way to find out. YET, The commentaries and papers I have read all are subject to question because they specifically do not give anything verifiable.
3Rs is convinced the John that was all have been told wrote Rev was a different John.
If so, then the dating could be off.
But aside from that... I respect 3Rs knowledge even though I will always be at odds with their beliefs.
I cannot believe and will not believe Jesus was back in 70AD either invisible in the clouds or visibly seen.
I also am at oddds with 3Rs over the crucifixion date.... They are fairly firm on their belief it was 33AD and I am equally firm that is was no later then 30AD and possibly 29AD based on many studies I have made.
But that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. so
I have known @3 Resurrections for many years now, starting in another forum and eventually to this one.
One thing I state. I am not a preterist, nor a partial preterist by any stretch and 3Rs and I have gone back and forth many times.
I have been looking for affirmative 95AD dating confirmation for Revelation for years.... The ancient historians talk in circles and
we actually have no definitive way to find out. YET, The commentaries and papers I have read all are subject to question because they specifically do not give anything verifiable.
3Rs is convinced the John that was all have been told wrote Rev was a different John.
If so, then the dating could be off.
But aside from that... I respect 3Rs knowledge even though I will always be at odds with their beliefs.
I cannot believe and will not believe Jesus was back in 70AD either invisible in the clouds or visibly seen.
I also am at oddds with 3Rs over the crucifixion date.... They are fairly firm on their belief it was 33AD and I am equally firm that is was no later then 30AD and possibly 29AD based on many studies I have made.
But that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. so
civic
Active Member
The timeline makes it impossible for 70ad to be Christs return.
50-60 CE
- James (c. 45-48 CE)
- 1 Thessalonians (c. 49-52 CE)
- Galatians (c. 49-51 CE)
- 1 Corinthians (c. 54-57 CE)
- 2 Thessalonians (c. 50-52 CE)
- 2 Corinthians (c. 55-56 CE)
- Romans (c. 56-57 CE)
60-70 CE
- Mark (c. 70-75 CE)
- Philemon (c. 61-63 CE)
- Philippians (c. 61-63 CE)
- Colossians (c. 61-63 CE)
- Ephesians (c. 61-63 CE)
- Luke (c. 60-62 CE)
- Acts (c. 62-64 CE)
- 1 Timothy (c. 62-64 CE)
- Titus (c. 62-64 CE)
- Hebrews (c. 64-70 CE)
- 1 Peter (c. 64-67 CE)
- 2 Timothy (c. 66-67 CE)
70-120 CE
civic
Active Member
Here is a great article below
here are a couple of pages
THE DATE OF REVELATIONTom's Perspectivesby Thomas IcePreterists teach that the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy about the Romanwar against the Jews in Israel that began in A.D. 67 and ended with the destruction ofthe Temple in A.D. 70. In order for Revelation to be a prediction of the future (Rev. 1:1,3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20) and if it was fulfilled by August A.D. 70, then it had to havebeen written by A.D. 65 or 66 for the preterist interpretation to even be a possibility.Preterist Ken Gentry has noted this major weakness when he said of fellow early dateadvocate David Chilton, “if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton's entire labor would go up in smoke.”1Actually, all one would have to do is to show that Revelation was written any time afterthe destruction of Jerusalem.The futurists interpretation is not dependant upon the date of Revelation since itdoes not matter when these events take place since they are still future to our own time.However, the date of Revelation is essential to the preterist position and explains whythey are so focused upon defending an early date. There are two lines of evidence:external (evidence from outside the Revelation) and internal (evidence from inside theRevelation).EXTERNAL EVIDENCEToday, the overwhelming consensus of scholarship believes that Revelation waswritten well after A.D. 70. Most have concluded that Revelation was written aroundA.D. 95, primarily because of the statement by early church father Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) around A.D. 180.
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to thename of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctlyrevealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him whobeheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, butalmost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.2It is important to note that Irenaeus was from Asia Minor (modern Turkey). TheApostle John was also from Ephesus in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was discipled in the faithby Polycarp who was discipled by the Apostle John. Thus, there is a direct link betweenthe one who wrote Revelation and Irenaeus. This strongly supports the credibility ofIrenaeus and his statement. Significantly, no other tradition relating to the date ofRevelation developed or gained a following in this part of the world. This is the veryarea to which the Revelation was given. Later, other traditions developed in theterritories of Christendom of a different time of the writing of Revelation. However,these were areas where Revelation was not taken as literally as in Asia Minor. Itappears logical that if the theory teaching an earlier date of Revelation were genuine,then it should have had a witness to it in Asia Minor and would have begun earlier thanthe fifth and sixth centuries. If the early date were really true, then it would have had a30-year head start to establish itself within early church tradition. However, that is notwhat happened. Such reality argues against the early date view and is a strong supportfor the late date view
Further support for Irenaeus' statement is seen in some of the early enemies ofIrenaeus' interpretation of Revelation. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, toname just a few, support Irenaeus' statement of a Domitian date. They did not believethat the statement of Irenaeus was not clear and should be doubted, as manycontemporary preterists desperately contend. Yet all the ancients who were on recordconcerning this mater accept our understanding of Irenaeus, as do modern translators.It is also not true that early date support goes back to a single individual (althoughthere would be nothing wrong with that since the truth of a matter is often traced backto a single source), since Hegesippus’ (A.D. 150) testimony pre-dates Irenaeus.3“The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-linesubscription in the Syriac translation of the New Testament in a.d. 550,” notes MarkHitchcock. “Only two other external witnesses to the early date exist: Arethas (c. 900)and Theophylact (d. 1107).” This is scant “evidence,” needless to say, upon which todraw such dogmatic conclusion, as is often done by many Preterists. On the otherhand, Hitchcock notes that the late date “has an unbroken line of support form some ofthe greatest, most reliable names in church history, beginning in A.D. 150. . . . Theexternal evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for thecomposition of Revelation.”
INTERNAL EVIDENCEMany Preterists contend that there are two major reasons from the Book ofRevelation itself that provide proof for their earlier date. First, they argue that sinceJohn refers to a Temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-2), then it must have been standing atthe time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the Temple'sdestruction in A.D. 70. Next they contend that the seven kings of Revelation 17:1-16refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Preterists contend that “oneis” (Rev. 17:10) would be a reference to Nero Caesar and “the other is not yet come”(Rev. 17:10) would be Galba. Thus, while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galbawas looming in the near future. This would mean, according to Preterists, thatRevelation was written while Nero was still alive.In rebuttal to the first Preterists argument, it must be remembered that in the Bookof Revelation John is receiving a vision about future things. He is transported in someway to that future time in order to view events as they will unfold. The word "saw" isused 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future eventsthrough a vision. It does not matter at all whether the Temple is thought to be standingin Jerusalem at the time that John sees the vision since that would not have any bearingupon a vision. John is told by an angel to “measure the temple” (Rev. 11:1). Measurewhat Temple? He is to measure the Temple in the vision. Even if there were a templestill standing in Jerusalem, John was on the Island of Patmos and would not have beenallowed to go and measure that Temple. Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a Temple(Ezek. 40—43) was told to measure that Temple. When Ezekiel saw and was told tomeasure a Temple there was not one standing in Jerusalem (Preterists agree). Thus,there is no compulsion whatsoever to conclude that just because a temple is referencedin Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical Temple standing inJerusalem at the same time.
The other Preterist argument is polluted by the same assumption that underlies theirprevious contention about the Temple. Preterists assume that the line of kings refer to afirst century succession of Roman kings and then pronounces Nero as the one to whichRevelation 17:10 refers. This is just an assumption and begs the question. John is seeing, recording, and commenting on a vision of the future. Thus, the time frame thathe is referencing would be that of whatever time he was viewing the future. Thiscannot then be used as a proof that he was viewing a particular time frame, withouthaving previously, in some other way, established the period of time that he views inthe vision. Preterists have not previously established when such a time frame is to takeplace. This line of reasoning by Preterists is not an internal proof for a Neronian datefor Revelation. All of the alleged proofs for an early date presuppose a preteristinterpretation (this certainly has not been established) as a false stating point in whichthey attempt to argue from.Regardless of the interpretation of this passage, it cannot be used as a proof forwhen Revelation was written. This passage is providing a landscape of biblical historyof those kingdoms, not individual kings, which have persecuted Israel. The five thatare fallen refer to the kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medes/Persia, and Greece.The sixth empire that was reigning at the time when John wrote was Rome. Theseventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the antichrist, known inRevelation as the Beast. This view is consistent with the way in which kings (i.e.,kingdoms) are used throughout both Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 17:10, says thatthe future leader and his empire will have a short life according to the words, “when hecomes, he must remain a little while.” The adjective “little” has the idea of brevity (Rev.12:12). God is saying that He has decreed the time of this final empire will be shorterthan the six previous. This factor alone would eliminate the possibility of the sevenkings being first-century Roman emperors.
THE SEVEN CHURCHESOne of the key internal evidences, which does not require positing a particularinterpretative approach, is the condition of the seven church in Revelation 2 and 3. Dothese churches look more like first-generation churches, which would appear to supportan early date, or do they favor a second-generation church, which would support thelate date? There are some key evidences that strongly favor a second-generationdepiction of the churches.5If John wrote early (A.D. 64–66) then it is likely that Paul’s two letters to Timothy,who was in Ephesus at the time, would overlap with John’s writing of Revelation andhis letter to the church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7). It would also mean that, “Paul likelywrote 2 Timothy after John wrote to the church.”6 The problem is that the error thatChrist points out to the Ephesians in Revelation should have surfaced in Paul’s epistlesif they were written around the same time. However, these problems are not evident inPaul’s writings. Further, it is unlikely that John had moved to Ephesus until after Peterand Paul had passed from the scene. Philip Schaff tells us: “It was probably themartyrdom of Peter and Paul that induced John to take charge of the orphan churches,exposed to serious danger and trials.”7Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that no church existed during the ministry ofPaul. Paul died around A.D. 66–67. Thus, there was not even a church in existence atSmyrna when the early daters say John wrote to them. Needless to say, this stronglyfavors the late date.The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the churchdescribed in Revelation 3:14–22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquakedevastated the city in A.D. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild.Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’s statement to church that says, “I amrich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been saidof them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding.John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because hewas banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were writtenduring the reign of Nero, then why wouldn’t John have been killed like Peter and Paul?Banishment was Domitian’s favorite way to persecute Christians. “Moreover, we haveno evidence of Nero’s use of banishment for Christians.
”8CONCLUSION: Since a preterist interpretation of Revelation requires an early date of the final bookin the Bible, preterists go to great lengths in their attempts to make their view appearviable. The Domitianic date is the overwhelmingly accepted view of scholarship in ourday and throughout most of church history. Nothing in Revelation itself contradictssuch a conclusion. It appears the major reason that preterists believe in an early date forRevelation is that their system requires it. In this instance the saying is true thatnecessity is the mother of invention. Maranatha!
civic
Active Member
There was no bodily Return of Jesus its still future.
civic
Active Member
AI has been on point lately- here on the problems of partial preterism
Arguments against partial preterism claim it has an inconsistent interpretation of scripture, often allegorizing prophecies that should be read literally, and it denies a future, final judgment by placing all major end-time events in the past. Critics also point to the view's inconsistent application to other biblical prophecies and historical texts, arguing it was not held by the early church fathers, and that it ignores the global and cataclysmic nature of some described prophecies.
Scriptural and hermeneutical issues
Arguments against partial preterism claim it has an inconsistent interpretation of scripture, often allegorizing prophecies that should be read literally, and it denies a future, final judgment by placing all major end-time events in the past. Critics also point to the view's inconsistent application to other biblical prophecies and historical texts, arguing it was not held by the early church fathers, and that it ignores the global and cataclysmic nature of some described prophecies.
Scriptural and hermeneutical issues
- Inconsistent interpretation:
Some critics argue that partial preterism requires an inconsistent application of scriptural interpretation, applying a literal view to some prophecies while allegorizing others, which they say makes the hermeneutic subjective.
- Allegorizing scripture:
This inconsistent approach leads to an allegorical interpretation of many prophecies that might otherwise be understood more literally. - Discrepancy with biblical texts:
Critics believe that partial preterism is not consistent with the Bible itself, pointing to texts like 2 Thessalonians 2:1 which describes the "day of Christ" as a future event.
- Allegorizing scripture:
- Rejection of a future judgment:
One of the main criticisms is that partial preterism denies a future, universal, public judgment of all people. Instead, it associates the great judgment with the destruction of Jerusalem or an ongoing spiritual reality. - Denial of future resurrection:
For some critics, the logical extension of full preterism (which asserts all prophecies were fulfilled in the first century) is that the future resurrection of the dead has already occurred, which is widely considered heretical.
- Rejection of a future judgment:
- Rejection by early church fathers:
Many argue that none of the early church fathers (first three centuries A.D.) viewed the Second Coming as a past event. In contrast, they believed it was a future event, and this view was passed down to their disciples. - Dating of the Book of Revelation:
Some scholars argue that the Book of Revelation was written around A.D. 95, after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which would make the prophecies it contains not fully fulfilled in the first century. - Inappropriateness of A.D. 70 for global events:
Critics contend that the tribulation events described in the Book of Revelation are too global and cataclysmic to be solely attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
- Rejection by early church fathers:
- Softening biblical effect:
Some worry that shifting from a historical-literal approach to a more allegorical interpretation softens the effect of Scripture on believers. - Relationship to replacement theology:
Partial preterism can lead to an extreme form of replacement theology, suggesting that the church has completely replaced Israel in God's plan. - Reinterpretation of other doctrines:
Critics argue that if prophecies are fulfilled in the past, it can lead to reinterpreting or dismissing other doctrines, such as a literal interpretation of Genesis or a global flood, and in some cases even the existence of a personal Devil.
- Softening biblical effect:
These dates are not conclusive, regardless of the source from which you got them (which I don't see supplied). Pick any online source, and they are by no means in agreement.
The "Against Heresies" (Book V. Chapter 30) document by Irenaeus proves an early date. When Irenaeus speaks of having "ancient copies" of the Apocalypse available to him in his own days, this tells us that Revelation had to have been written long before Irenaeus' time. Speaking of the 666 number, Irenaeus wrote...
"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];..."
Why would Irenaeus speak of having "ancient copies" of the Apocalypse available to him at that time, and yet have the Apocalypse originally "seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign"? This would be a complete contraction between two statements found in the very same document by Irenaeus.
Since the second statement n "Against Heresies" is an ambiguous one, which can be translated one of two different ways (either John was seen almost in Irenaeus' days, OR the vision was seen) it is best not to base the date of Revelation's composition on such shaky ground as this. In this case, it is the late-date setters who are desperate to make their case - not the early-date adherents.
I am not at all impressed with Irenaeus' understanding of Revelation anyway. The man could not tell the difference between the 666 number of the ancient Sea Beast and the other individual called "Antichrist" which was present in John's days (which Irenaeus mistakenly thought had not yet come). The Sea Beast and the Antichrist were not the same thing at all, but Irenaeus wanted to conflate the two.
Irenaeus also mixes up the third Scarlet Beast with the Antichrist, which aren't the same individual either. And he thought that the Antichrist would conquer the entire world and rule for 3-1/2 years, which is not an activity ascribed to the Antichrist at all.
In short, Irenaeus should be taken with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
A misquote. Somebody's interpretation of what they thought Polycarp said. Paul's ministry in Asia resulted in "All who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." so that "not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people..." (Acts 19:10, 26). This included Smyrna. And this was before the AD 57 riot of the Ephesian silversmiths in Acts 19. That means there was a Smyrna church before AD 57.
The point of Rev. 11:1-2 is that the temple court would be given to the Gentiles as a base from which the holy city would be trodden down for a period of 42 months in the future from when John was writing. That means the second temple still had to be in existence as John was writing for those Gentiles to stage their activity of treading the holy city underfoot for that 42 months from that location.
I agree that Preterists are incorrect on this. Those seven and the eighth "kings of the earth" were not Roman emperors at all. They were the eight members of the corrupt high priesthood of the house of Annas who conspired against Christ. Five of these high priest "kings" in Israel had died as of the time John was writing, and John wrote that "one IS" still in existence, which would have been Theophilus ben Annas, to whom the books of Acts and Luke were written. The sixth high priest "king" who had not yet come into office was Ananus ben Annas, who would only continue for a "short space" of three months before Rome deposed him (in AD 63). So Revelation had to have been written some time before AD 63 per this Rev. 17 text.
This Laodicean earthquake in AD 60 is proof of an early date composition of Revelation just before AD 60. God told the Laodiceans that "I am about to spue thee out of my mouth". This was an imminent judgment on the Laodicean church, which was "about to" happen with the AD 60 earthquake which overcame the city.
John was a "companion in tribulation" in Patmos subsequent to the fallout from the AD 57 Ephesian riot of the silversmiths story in Acts 19. This riot launched a serious period of tribulation from the Jews in Asia which Paul referenced in 2 Cor. 1:8. "For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life:" John shared in the consequences of this, by his being sent to Patmos - which was within the jurisdiction of Ephesus.
It is not a choice of either / or. It is BOTH / AND. Christ returned bodily back in AD 70 on that year's Pentecost day (in fulfillment of Daniel 12:11-13). Christ will ALSO bodily return in our future as well. And every pattern I see in Scripture indicates that future return will take place in AD 3033 in that year's seventh month in which the Feast of Tabernacles used to be celebrated.
Last edited:
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Goodmorning @3Ressurections.....
I am confuse by what you say here
Here you have Irenaeus allegedly supporting your early date theory.
Then you seem to discount your supporter. Which BTW, I believe to be very wise because from things I have read and from what I post below Irenaeus Is a solid witness for the LATE date.
Even with his supporting the early date... !!! I agree.
grok.com
The Book of Revelation was written ca. 95–96 AD, during the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian (81–96 AD). This is the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholars, early church fathers, and historical evidence.
→ Unbroken tradition from 2nd century onward.
→ No early church father supports 60s AD. First appears in 19th century.
So while this seems to point to Iraneus as a definite person in the know... my gut tells me that he wrote or said what was expedient at the time.... so proves not your point or mine.
I will keep looking....
I am confuse by what you say here
Here you have Irenaeus allegedly supporting your early date theory.
Then you seem to discount your supporter. Which BTW, I believe to be very wise because from things I have read and from what I post below Irenaeus Is a solid witness for the LATE date.
Even with his supporting the early date... !!! I agree.
Grok
Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and more.
grok.com
The Book of Revelation was written ca. 95–96 AD, during the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian (81–96 AD). This is the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholars, early church fathers, and historical evidence.
Key Evidence for 95–96 AD (Late Date)
| Source | Testimony | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Irenaeus (c. 180 AD, disciple of Polycarp, who knew John) | “It was seen… near the end of Domitian’s reign” (Against Heresies 5.30.3) | Direct link to the apostle John; grammar refers to the vision, not John’s age. |
| Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 AD) | John returned from Patmos after the “tyrant” (Domitian) died (Who Is the Rich Man? 42) | Domitian died 96 AD → John wrote on or just after Patmos. |
| Victorinus (c. 270 AD) | John wrote after returning from Patmos mines under Domitian (Commentary on Revelation) | Earliest commentary — explicit late date. |
| Eusebius (c. 325 AD) | Exile under Domitian; vision at reign’s end (Church History 3.18) | Compiles earlier sources. |
→ Unbroken tradition from 2nd century onward.
Internal Evidence (Text Fits 90s AD)
| Clue in Revelation | 90s AD Context | 60s AD Problem |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Churches (Rev 2–3) | Ephesus lost “first love” (30+ years after Paul); Smyrna exists (didn’t in 60s) | Too rapid decline in 4–5 years |
| Laodicea “rich” (3:17) | Rebuilt after 60 AD earthquake; prosperous by 90s | Still “needy” in 60s (Tacitus) |
| Emperor worship (13:4) | Domitian demanded “Lord and God” title | Nero targeted Christians in Rome, not empire-wide |
| John on Patmos (1:9) | Domitian exiled opponents to islands | Nero executed in arenas |
The “Early Date” (60s AD, Nero) — Minority View
| Argument | Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| “666 = Nero” (gematria) | Irenaeus (180 AD) lists multiple options — not Nero. First Nero link = 1831. |
| “Temple still standing” (Rev 11) | Rev 11 = heavenly temple (11:19); symbolic, not literal. |
| “Persecution” | Nero’s was local (Rome); Domitian’s was empire-wide. |
→ No early church father supports 60s AD. First appears in 19th century.
Final Answer
So while this seems to point to Iraneus as a definite person in the know... my gut tells me that he wrote or said what was expedient at the time.... so proves not your point or mine.
I will keep looking....
Cyrus
Active Member
When doctrines get to complicated they can't be God inspired. God did not make His Word unclear. The message of God’s Word is perfectly clear. The reason that the Bible can sometimes be hard to understand is that we are all fallen beings - sin clouds and distorts our understanding and leads us to twist the Bible to our own liking.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@Cyrus
You are 100% correct.
It is man that makes things so complicated not God. IMO God's plan is brilliantly simplistic in design and the fault lies with
man and the need to always be one step Infront of the brother in everything including the knowledge of what was
meant when God inspired the Holy Book.
I have often thought, over the past couple of years, that if our salvation was dependent on our understanding things written
in a forum we would all be doomed.
Irenaeus is a rock-solid support for the early date. The very same "Against Heresies" document which is so often quoted has Irenaeus speaking about his having at that time the 666 number preserved "in all the most approved and ancient copies of the Apocalypse". So not only was Revelation written long before Irenaeus's days, enough time had passed for even copies to be made of this work, and the 666 vs. the variant 616 number to have been debated over. That was the whole point of this section of the "Against Heresies" work. Some had been proposing that the variant number of 616 should be used, while others were saying that it was 666 without a doubt. You can't have variations of this number without there being different copies of the same Apocalypse circulating. And if Irenaeus refers to these as "ANCIENT copies", there is no way that Revelation could simultaneously have been originally penned almost in Irenaeus's days, towards the end of Domitian's reign. These are totally contradictory concepts.
Not at all. The second statement found in this "Against Heresies" document by Irenaeus can be translated one of two possible ways. Depending on which inserted pronoun the translator decides to use (because the pronouns aren't there in the original text, but must be assumed), it can mean EITHER "it" (the vision) was seen, OR "he" (John) was seen almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. But since Irenaeus already spoke about his having "all the most approved and ancient copies of the Apocalypse" in his own time, it should be understood that Irenaeus was saying that JOHN was seen almost towards the end of Domitian's reign. I would be very careful to use this 50/50 optional inserted pronoun to base all my late-date assertions upon. It makes no sense at all when compared to the rest of this "Against Heresies" document.
Last edited:
Well, even the Apostle Peter wrote concerning Paul's eschatology that he had written in his epistles "some things hard to be understood" (2 Peter 3:16). Yet Peter still calls Paul's writings part of the Scriptures of inspired work, even though Paul's doctrine was complicated.
And many times it is simply a matter of translation variations from the original languages, rather than a dark purpose of someone attempting to "twist the Bible to our own liking", as you assume must be the case.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Well my search goes on.... as I am sure you know it would...
It is nice to have another focus away from the other debated stuff.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Irenaeus is NOT a solid link to the early 60s AD dating of Revelation. He is the strongest "ancient" witness for the late date...... and what you said about the 666/661 really does not prove anything about dating.
I hqave some exact text and context... here.
Irenaeus’ Clear Statement:
What it says is The number 666 is in the oldest manuscripts Irenaeus knew.
What it does NOT say is When Revelation was written or anything about dating.
Some say Irenaeus knew men who saw John” and that ties to the early date.
Facts say Irenaeus was born between 120 AD and 130 AD... He knew Polycarp who died 155 AD, ...and Polycarp knew John who died around 100 AD....
Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies around 180 AD AND No one alive in 180 AD saw John in 60s.
And while Polycarp was a disciple of Johns. He also was not born until around 69AD.
“Ancient copies” of Revelation and dating them to the 60s AD? This does not track because “ancient” to Irenaeus in 180 AD. with John living to 100+ years old fits the 95 AD timing ,and shows no proof of 60s.
While In "Against Heresies," Irenaeus refers to "ancient copies" of the Book of Revelation and He emphasizes that these copies were widely recognized and approved in his time. This suggests that the text of Revelation was already established and circulated among early Christians. But we must remember that HIS time was around 125 AD to around 202AD
And that was plenty of time from 95AD for copies to be made and well circulated.....
We cannot use the "Early Christians mentions for a time line simply because it is said it spread from around 30 AD, following the death of Jesus, to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. (from Wiki) That is too wide a gap.
So in my opinion Irenaeus is not definitive .... and I still see him with the later date based on things I found from above.
We need someone other then him to compare.
I think you are missing the whole point about the contradiction between the two statements in "Against Heresies" for those who propose the late date....
At any rate, I don't even like to consider external proof versus the inspired internal proof within Revelation itself which points to a date between late AD 59 and early AD 60. I've listed all this internal evidence before on the GCF site, and eventually I will post it on here also over time.
