The Beast of Revelation (18 of 25) Late Date vs. Early Date?

http://forerunner.com/beast/beast.html

Question:- If John's Book of Revelation was written after the fall of Jerusalem, your entire argument seems to me to fall to pieces. What do you do with the famous passage by Irenaeus, the great Church father who was alive when some of John's disciples were alive, who dates John's exile to the isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, over 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem.

Irenaeus' statement is: "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." Irenaeus was writing about A.D. 180.

(1) The "was not seen" is grammatically ambiguous: it could mean either: John was seen alive at that time, or: John saw the Revelation at that time. The context suggest John was seen. After all, what difference would it make when Revelation was received by John? The point is: John was alive and people could have asked him about the identity of the Antichrist. John could have distinctly revealed the identity in question in Revelation itself - regardless of when it was written.

(2) Elsewhere Irenaeus deals with the problem that some mss have "666" and others "616": "Now since this is so, and since this number is found in all the good and ancient copies." How could he call copies of Revelation "ancient" if the original was written "almost in our day"?

(3) Irenaeus claims on the same sort of evidence (references by those who knew John" that Jesus ministered for fifteen years until after the age of 50: "the age of 30 years is the first of a young man's mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness." So even if we interpret Irenaeus to mean John wrote Revelation toward the end of Domitian's reign, the fact it Irenaeus made mistakes.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Beast
• Revelation
• Antichrist
• Anti-Christ
• Bible
• Gentry
• eschatology
• end-times
• preterist
• preterism
• postmillennialism
• 666

[lordrothchild21]

@dopolavoro1 not really, he didnt sound as malicous as you do, he even put up the quote from ireneus.

[lordrothchild21]

@lgpayne61 that doesnt fit the preterist view. They lied dead in the streets for all to gaze. Your statement doesnt make sense unless you have more of an explanation.

[21mOliver]

666 could be the man that is king of an unknown tongue

no of course im not talking about foreign tounge

or the man of lawlessness

or a nicolaitan

[lgpayne61]

the 2 wittnesses are the old and new testiment of the bible.

[melbourneopera]

so who is two witness anyway? 7bowls and 7 trumpets? Drinking the martyer of Jesus?

That's is the problem in revelation......

[MrPeaceKey]

It is my understanding that the NT books were written in the first century to people living in the 1st century about things they had exerienced, were experienceing and would soon experience. It was not written to people who would not appear for 2000 years.

Jesus repeatedly said "when you see..."

It is rather arrogant to think he was talking to us.

The fulfilment of his prophecies, in the 1st century, are proof of who he was.

Israel and Jerusalem were not on the map for 200 years.

[Saiaton]

No, it has to LOOK AS IF written before 70. Irenaeus was an ignorant bigot responsible for suppressing Christian transcendentalist understanding and reducing it to just another childish worship of an alternate Divine Emperor. At the time and for long after, his view was minority, just as Augustine's is also minority that the Orthodox have never taken seriously. Valentinus retained the true Christian attitude.

[PeterCornstalk]

There is an account of John around 90 AD and he had to be carried and spoke no more than a few words. Do you really think he could have wrote Revelation then? Also there is much more Internal and External Evidence that Revelation was written before 70 AD. Facts speak truth, not agendas...

[dopolavoro1]

This is nothing more than grammatical jabberwocky. He's exaggerating a flaw in human language and imposing it upon Irenaeus' words in order to suit his preterist agenda.

[TreyDubzz]

So you base your theory on presumtion that the book was written before AD 70 since you have no solid proof of this...correct? By all accounts that I have seen, the Revelation was written around AD 95. How does Daniel and Ezekiel's visions fit into all of this? Those were "sealed up" so were they already "unsealed" according to your theory. If so, why haven't the apostles told us these visions of the future are completed now. What future events must occur for Christ's millenial reign on earth?