Patristic Evidence for Early Date of Revelation

[TimTams]

na

 

[Bobby Jo]

It seems to me that there's a STRONG risk that each "OPINION" has an underlying basis which is not disclosed, -- primarily resolving Rev. 17 to some "rational" explanation. Consider all the failed attempts to reconcile Daniel's Seventy Weeks, where FALSE History is created, Scripture contorted, and still no possible solution.

And so I'd simply present what DISHONEST Commentator's try to conceal, but Scholars reveal:

“[The] five of whom are fallen [presumes John’s work to be written in] Vespasian’s reign. Titus is to come, but only to last for a short time. Perhaps the writer knew of the hopeless condition of Titus’ health. He is therefore either using a literary convention, and assuming an earlier date than is the fact to give his words the force of a prophecy concerning Titus, or, more likely, he is using here material written in Vespasian’s reign which partly suits his purpose and partly not; for there are very good reasons for thinking that this book was written, not in Vespasian’s reign, but in Domitian’s.”[1]

[1] Eiselen, Frederick, Edwin Lewis, & David Downey, The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, NY, 1929, p. 1392​

Thus the attempt to assign the Seven "Mountains"/"Kings" to an ancient and DEAD Empire is FALSE, -- just as these same DISHONEST people try to convince us that Dan. 2 has FOUR World Empires (1,2,3,4a,4b) when 2:45 CLEARLY STIPULATES FIVE (4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE).


So now, this "poll" should not be DRIVEN by agenda driven LIARS, but rather RESOLVED by both the TRUTH of Scripture and History. -- But few are able to come to that resolution, and so it's to be anticipated that they can only parrot the BEST LIES of the Commentators, rather than arrive at the TRUTH.

? WHO can "... handle the TRUTH ..."?!?​

With Very Best Regards,
Bobby Jo

 

[TimTams]

It seems to me that there's a STRONG risk that each "OPINION" has an underlying basis which is not disclosed, -- primarily resolving Rev. 17 to some "rational" explanation. Consider all the failed attempts to reconcile Daniel's Seventy Weeks, where FALSE History is created, Scripture contorted, and still no possible solution.

And so I'd simply present what DISHONEST Commentator's try to conceal, but Scholars reveal:

“[The] five of whom are fallen [presumes John’s work to be written in] Vespasian’s reign. Titus is to come, but only to last for a short time. Perhaps the writer knew of the hopeless condition of Titus’ health. He is therefore either using a literary convention, and assuming an earlier date than is the fact to give his words the force of a prophecy concerning Titus, or, more likely, he is using here material written in Vespasian’s reign which partly suits his purpose and partly not; for there are very good reasons for thinking that this book was written, not in Vespasian’s reign, but in Domitian’s.”[1]

[1] Eiselen, Frederick, Edwin Lewis, & David Downey, The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, NY, 1929, p. 1392​

Thus the attempt to assign the Seven "Mountains"/"Kings" to an ancient and DEAD Empire is FALSE, -- just as these same DISHONEST people try to convince us that Dan. 2 has FOUR World Empires (1,2,3,4a,4b) when 2:45 CLEARLY STIPULATES FIVE (4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE).


So now, this "poll" should not be DRIVEN by agenda driven LIARS, but rather RESOLVED by both the TRUTH of Scripture and History. -- But few are able to come to that resolution, and so it's to be anticipated that they can only parrot the BEST LIES of the Commentators, rather than arrive at the TRUTH.

? WHO can "... handle the TRUTH ..."?!?​

With Very Best Regards,
Bobby Jo

The post is about the historical evidence for the dating of Revelation, not about the INTERPRETATION of Revelation. Please keep to topic.

 

[Bobby Jo]

The post is about the historical evidence for the dating of Revelation, not about the INTERPRETATION of Revelation. Please keep to topic.

I've already explained that the "historical evidence" purported for the Book of Daniel is distorted because of the "INTERPRETATION". And I equally expect that same aspect for any purported dating of the Book of Revelation as proposed.

AND I can cite DOZENS of FALSE "HISTORY" for the Book of Daniel, starting with 1:21 where DANIEL DIED -- but the LIARS insist the he continued for some number of years.


So PLEASE PERFORM TO YOUR TOPIC, -- or change your topic!
Bobby Jo

 

[TimTams]

I've already explained that the "historical evidence" purported for the Book of Daniel is distorted because of the "INTERPRETATION".

Irrelevant.

And how do you "perform to your topic"?

 

[Bobby Jo]

... how do you "perform to your topic"?

... by considering ALL contributors?

I.e., there's an old adage that the WINNER writes the HISTORY, so that must be taken into account. And the parallel, is that the "church" writes a DISHONEST HISTORY, per their own motives. -- Consider the Dan. 9:25 "seven and sixty-two". Is there ANY PRECEDENT in Scripture or any Society where numbers are summed in such fashion? Certainly a: mile and a quarter; cup and a third; dozen and a half; four score and ten; -- are all perfectly "legal", but "seven and sixty-two"?!?

And of course I'd propose that the "church" is expected to have "all the answers", even when it requires DISOBEYING the angel's instructions in 12:4 & 9. So instead of the TRUTH they give their BEST LIES. But now that men can travel some 60 to 600mph, and have Instant Knowledge LITERALLY at their fingertips, we should see these lies.


But if your thumb can blot out the sun, then it must not exist ...
Bobby Jo

 

[TimTams]

nothing you write makes any sense.

 

[Jay Ross]

nothing you write makes any sense.

Please forgive @Bobby Jo as he has his own peculiar way of understanding the Book of Daniel. He believes that Daniel 1:21 speaks of when Daniel died, whereas this verse could also be understood to indicate that Daniel held high positions within the governing elect for the various kings up to and until the end of King Cyrus's reign. Daniel 6:28 seems to confirm this POV where it states: -

Daniel 6:28: - 28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

However, BJ makes this claim and then lampoons anyone who disagrees with him: -

AND I can cite DOZENS of FALSE "HISTORY" for the Book of Daniel, starting with 1:21 where DANIEL DIED -- but the LIARS insist the he continued for some number of years.

His above statement is BJ private understanding, which other people also hold to.

Because BJ believes that his understanding is true, then it is foolishness to argue with his beliefs as they are true for him. Sadly, he does not respect other people's beliefs like he expects others to accept and believe what he posts with respect to his beliefs.

BJ loves diverting people from their perceived message, that they wish to present, into a bun fight over insults and who holds the better understanding about what he posts. The ignore button is useful in that it means that you do not have to read his disruptive posts.

The truth of the matter is, that the Book of Daniel does not give any clear indications as to when Daniel the Prophet died. What we can glean from his book is that he lived to be a very old man before he died. As to the year he died and his age, we have no biblical evidence to support any conclusions that we collectively may make.

Now with respect to your OP's presentation concerning the Book of Revelation, I have this question, "Does knowing when the Book of Revelation was written change the actual message content of the Book of Revelation?"

Shalom

PS: - touting your wares on this forum by providing links to your blog, is often frowned upon by the administrators of this forum so early in a new members posting history. But I will let them confirm this to you.

 

[TimTams]

na

 

[Timtofly]

It was written during the actual events.

Unless one can write while asleep, it was not written after he woke up.

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

This is not the narrative of a dream state like Daniel wrote about.

Would the question not be when did the churches actually get a copy of his letters?

 

[Timtofly]

His above statement is BJ private understanding, which other people also hold to.

If we go with an age of 15 to 20 when Daniel arrived, and he died 70 years later, Daniel would be 85 or 90. Do some think he lived to be 100 or 120?

 

[Jay Ross]

If we go with an age of 15 to 20 when Daniel arrived, and he died 70 years later, Daniel would be 85 or 90. Do some think he lived to be 100 or 120?

So you are agreeing with me that Daniel was an old person when he died. Since the Bible does no indicate the year in which he was born and when he died, the question of how old Daniel was when he died is only a digression from actually meditating on the actual message content of his book. The same is also true in that a focus on when the book of Revelation was written only takes us away from considering the actual message content and context of the book itself.

Pressing into God's Loving Embrace is more important than any trivial pursuit of when the Book of Revelation was written.

Shalom

 

[Timtofly]

So you are agreeing with me that Daniel was an old person when he died. Since the Bible does no indicate the year in which he was born and when he died, the question of how old Daniel was when he died is only a digression from actually meditating on the actual message content of his book. The same is also true in that a focus on when the book of Revelation was written only takes us away from considering the actual message content and context of the book itself.

Pressing into God's Loving Embrace is more important than any trivial pursuit of when the Book of Revelation was written.

Shalom

Yes, and 70 may be young to some posters, but not to all.

3 The king ordered Ashp’naz, the eunuch serving as his chief officer, to bring into the palace from the people of Isra’el some of royal or noble descent.
4 They were to be boys without physical defect, handsome in appearance, versed in all kinds of wisdom, quick to learn, discerning, and having the capacity to serve in the king’s palace; and he was to teach them the language and literature of the Kasdim.

Never is it stated that Daniel was born in captivity. His being chosen was linked to the sack of Jerusalem by the king.

The date the churches finally received their copy of Revelations is unknown and not relevant, because God's Word is to be taken by Faith and trust in God, not by man's reasoning.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It seems to me that there's a STRONG risk that each "OPINION" has an underlying basis which is not disclosed, -- primarily resolving Rev. 17 to some "rational" explanation. Consider all the failed attempts to reconcile Daniel's Seventy Weeks, where FALSE History is created, Scripture contorted, and still no possible solution.

And so I'd simply present what DISHONEST Commentator's try to conceal, but Scholars reveal:

“[The] five of whom are fallen [presumes John’s work to be written in] Vespasian’s reign. Titus is to come, but only to last for a short time. Perhaps the writer knew of the hopeless condition of Titus’ health. He is therefore either using a literary convention, and assuming an earlier date than is the fact to give his words the force of a prophecy concerning Titus, or, more likely, he is using here material written in Vespasian’s reign which partly suits his purpose and partly not; for there are very good reasons for thinking that this book was written, not in Vespasian’s reign, but in Domitian’s.”[1]

[1] Eiselen, Frederick, Edwin Lewis, & David Downey, The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, NY, 1929, p. 1392​

Thus the attempt to assign the Seven "Mountains"/"Kings" to an ancient and DEAD Empire is FALSE, -- just as these same DISHONEST people try to convince us that Dan. 2 has FOUR World Empires (1,2,3,4a,4b) when 2:45 CLEARLY STIPULATES FIVE (4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE).


So now, this "poll" should not be DRIVEN by agenda driven LIARS, but rather RESOLVED by both the TRUTH of Scripture and History. -- But few are able to come to that resolution, and so it's to be anticipated that they can only parrot the BEST LIES of the Commentators, rather than arrive at the TRUTH.

? WHO can "... handle the TRUTH ..."?!?​

With Very Best Regards,
Bobby Jo

What most people who love to assign early ages of the writing of REvelation is as follows.

1.John was not an expert on roman rule!
2. He was a semi literate Jewish fisherman called to be an apostle, not historian
3. He was busy with the affairs of the church and not with Roman Rule.
4. So he would not have been writing in code to the churches based on some superior historical knowledge which he did not possess.
5. REvelation was given to him by vision and not historical reports!
6. Nearly all historical recordsd poiint to c. 91-95 AD as the time of John exile under Domitian.
7. This was a mining and penal island and communication with the outside world was very very limited for prisoners.