It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good Friday and 3:00 p.m.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



Irenaeus says John was seen at the end of Domitian's reign. The subject of Irenaeus' previous statements is John, therefore the subject of the statement in question is also John, not the vision (which is the object of his previous statement).


No, Irenaeus said it came from Polycarp, his apostle, and Polycarp was John's direct disciple. That's the apostolic chain for this information, I'd think John's direct disciple would know when his apostle wrote the book. Seeing as he was his direct disciple.

John wrote revelation (received the Apocalyptic vision) at the end of Domitian's reign. Besides, Occam's razor again here, Nero killed Peter and Paul, if he had the chance to get John too why did he banish him to Patmos. Domitian loved to banish folks, Nero liked making them commit suicide in front of Him.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Here's what Irenaeus said in Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 30):

"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."

And then he adds,

Oude gar pro pollou chronou heorathe, alla schedon epi tes hemeteras geneas, pros to telei tes Dometianou arches.

That is,

Oude [But not] gar [for] pro [before] pollou [much] chronou [of time] heorathe [it/he was seen], alla [but] schedon [almost] epi [at] tes [of the] hemeteras [of us] geneas [generation], pros [toward] to [the] telei [end] tes [of the] Dometianou [of Domitian] arches [of authority].

In English:

"For, not much time before, it/he was seen; but almost at our generation, toward the end of Domitian's authority/reign."

The Greek heorathe is both the neuter and masculine of "was seen" - meaning, he could either be referring to "it" (the vision) or "he" (John).
Again, as I said, the subject of Irenaeus' previous statements (the sentence I quoted first, above) was John. Either Irenaeus switches subjects mid-thought, or the subject is John throughout. This means the subject of the second statement is also John. He is the one who was seen not much time before (not very long ago).

Eusebius then popularized the false translation 150 years later in his Church Histories (Book III, Chapter 18).


However, the best evidence is in the Book of Revelation itself.
John is told that the seven heads of the beast are seven kings. At that time, five had fallen, one was, and one was to come for a short time, to be followed an eighth who would be the "revival" of the beast.
If five had fallen, then those five would have been Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero (the beast that was). The eighth would have been Domitian (the beast that was coming up out of the abyss). The seventh was Titus, who reigned for just two years (certainly a short time).
The king who was reigning at that time, then, was Vespasian. He ruled from AD 69 to 79. John had to have written somewhere in there.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



However, the best evidence is in the Book of Revelation itself.


And secular history, Laodecia was destroyed in 60ish AD. There was not a church there until 85ish AD.

And what do kings represent? What do kings rule?

The "one who is", is Rome. That's why the antichrist's is the "revived" Roman Empire, and I'm not talking about Western Europe, the other leg of Roman Empire outlasted the Western by 1,000 years.

In visions kings or mountains are symbolic of kingdoms.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And secular history, Laodecia was destroyed in 60ish AD. There was not a church there until 85ish AD.


Do you have a source for that?
The only reference to the rebuilding of Laodicea that I know of is the Annals of Tacitus. And I know you know it as well, but, for the sake of being thorough, in his Annals (Book XIV, Chapter 27) he wrote:

"One of the famous cities of Asia, Laodicea, was that same year overthrown by an earthquake, and, without any relief from us, recovered itself by its own resources."

"That same year," of course, is in reference to AD 60, when the earthquake occurred.
He doesn't say how long it took for them to rebuilt, but should we really expect it to have taken 25 years? Do you have any source(s) saying it took 25 years?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime

Hi CL

You wrote

QUOTE

However, the best evidence is in the Book of Revelation itself. John is told that the 7 heads of the beast are 7 kings. At that time, five had fallen, one was, and one was to come for a short time, to be followed an eighth who would be the "revival" of the beast.

If five had fallen, then those five would have been Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero (the beast that was).

The 8th would have been Domitian (the beast coming up out of the Abyss). The seventh was Titus, who reigned for just two years (certainly a short time).

The king who was reigning at that time, then, was Vespasian. He ruled from AD 69 to 79. John had to have written somewhere in there. "

UNQUOTE

If you start with JULIUS Caesar, you can get a different config : Julius / Augustus / Tiberius / Gaius / Claudius & THEN Nero. You don't get to Domitian for a while (although the book was being copied out by hand during his reign too & was re-doctored at that time - despite the Deuteronomistic warnings of non-tampering !

Why issue a warning ('to him who adds words to this text, may the plagues listed herein come upon him' etc.) if the process had not started ?

That at least would account for the abrupt marginalia that creep in here and there in the text and ruin not only Aramaic poetic underlay (mainly Qinah Metre) but also the logic (naturally).

Don't overlook the pause in the fighting in 69CE during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome following the death of Nero - even the Dead Sea Scroll Zadokite Zealots hid their scrolls in caves 1-11 in June of 68 in the first part of the War - so the War Scroll for them had deeper meaning - & 'Revelation' echoes the Warrior Hymns in 1QM (and anti goyim language !)

e.g. New Psalms Singing etc.) & despite the hope in the Book that Rome would be overthrown by YHWH (like the War Scroll says)- a War when the Jewish Messianic warriors LOST more than 900,000 persons according to Josephus (by 72 CE think of Masada) - 'internal evidence' indicates (from the text) that the JEWISH WAR is still raging - & about to go into its 2nd & most deadly phase - but that there was STILL hope of Victory of the Warrior Messiah in White & the book overtly glorifies Jihadist Warrior Male Virgin 'righteous' freedom fighters & martyrs who are bodilly resurrected 'after 3 and 1/2 days'

The year 69 CE was the 'year of the 4 - Emperors' ('Nero, Otho, Galba & Vespasian') so one has to be careful about counting horns & getting to Domitian so fast !

How one slices the list of horns coming-going & wounded & disappearing & reappearing etc is open for debate (off topic, alas !!) &. If 69 CE is the year the book appeared, at what month in CE 69 was it written / cobbled together /re-written?

Does one include Galba or just Otho? Or do you count BOTH Galba AND Otho ? or do you add Vespasian? do you add Julius Caesar? etc.

The reason we seem to have gone off on a tangent here is not because Revelation is cool in & of itself but because (within the confines of this threadlet topic) of Revelation chapter 11 - which shows the Martyrdom of the Two Preachy Messiahs which are resurrected & 'exalted' to the right hand of the Most High after THREE & ONE HALF DAYS (counting a time, two times and half a time of Heb. Daniel) by literally ascending in to Heaven in front of the 'watchers' (cf: In that Day the Watchers shall quake etc.)

And behold, when the 1260 Days of their Testimony was ended
Behold, the Abba Doq’on rose up from the Smoky Abyss
In order to wage un-holy war against them :
And lo, both of them suffered a cruel Death
Even the horrible suffering of the holy Martyrs
Even at the Hands of him who rose from the botom of the Pit.

And lo, their Corpses lay unburied
Even in the midst of the open Streets of the Holy City
Yea, exposed without their being placed in Graves :
And lo, they lay there exposed to the open air
Even for a set Period of times
Even Three & One Half Days & Nights .
... ... etc.

For the Two Martyrs had pronounced oracles of evil against them
Even during the period of 1260 Days
Which constituted the times of their Combined Preaching :
And behold, after Three & One-Half Days was fulfilled
Behold, the Breath of Life from EL returned to them
And re-entered the Corpses of the Two Martyrs who were slain.

And lo, they both stood up alive breathing
And great Terror fell upon the Watchers
And a mighty shaking seized all those who looked thereon :
And those looking heard a Qol from Heaven :
And it spake saying : Ascend now, My Righteous Ones,
Even to your assigned places in Heaven !

And lo, the Two Martyrs began to ascend
Even high up into the Firmament of Heaven etc. etc.

This thread started out about the 9am, 12noon and 3pm 'liturgical' marking of hours in the 2nd gospel - and has morphed a bit off track with 3 days & nights !



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



Do you have a source for that?


I linked it already a few posts back. Click it friend or Google "Laodecia earthquake 60 AD" and feast on the buffet of information available.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Interesting...the tables have turned. Now you're the one side-stepping questions and failing to provide proof.

Your link is to Wikipedia, which has Tacitus as its only source for the Laodicean destruction and says absolutely nothing about it being rebuilt in AD 85.

Care to try again?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Interesting...the tables have turned. Now you're the one side-stepping questions and failing to provide proof.

Your link is to Wikipedia, which has Tacitus as its only source for the Laodicean destruction and says absolutely nothing about it being rebuilt in AD 85.

Care to try again?


Look man, I'm not Sigi, if you want to start getting rude and condescending I'll leave. My quality of life doesn't hinge upon your accepted date for the book of Revelation, keep that in mind. I have other information, but if you want to talk down to me like I'm a step-child I'll leave this thread and not come back. It's been a week since Good Friday...

I'm not really interested in doing homework for you when Google is a few clicks away. Maybe after my reading time tonight. Decide right now if you want to discuss in a friendly manner or not. I have history talking to Sigi, not you.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I just want you guys to provide proof when asked. It took me long enough to get specifics from Sigismundus. You linked to Wikipedia, which doesn't answer my question or provide proof of the AD 85 date. I have been searching for information on the re-establishing of the church of Laodicea since we started talking about this, and I haven't found a thing. I still only know of the account given by Tacitus. If you know of any others, I would love to know.

If you have historical evidence that Laodicea wasn't rebuilt until ca. AD 85, then I would love to see it, because it would seriously challenge my current understanding of the context of Revelation. If it exists, I would love to know about it. On the other hand, if you don't have proof, then I need to know that also, as does everyone else who may be reading this with any sort of interest in the topic.
edit on 12-4-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


But do you realize how ridiculously hard it is for me to search trough 7 shelves of books for an answer that someone just refuses to accept? It take time, you have no patience. It's like someone demanding to teach them all about Greek verb tenses with sources proof and practical examples in 1 hour. Now you may be able to understand my frustration.

I thought you was asking for proof of the earthquake in 60 AD, not the completion of a church and people moving back into the area and when the church began to flourishing, Eschatology has been a study of mine for well over a decade, be patient. I thought you were asking for info about the earthquake. That's why I said there was a link, or you can Google "Laodecia Earthquake". Research takes time friend, and attitude turns me off very fast.

Okay?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The attitude was probably my waning patience (Sigismundus didn't get me off to a great start with that). I'm asking for the source of the AD 85 date...that's all.
Also, I've been studying eschatology for about as long...just for a little commonality between you and I.

ETA: I should also say, I do apologize for being so short with you. You're not the first person to complain about that, and you probably won't be the last...though, I would love it if you were (for the sake of my being a child of God...I'm working on it).
edit on 12-4-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The attitude was probably my waning patience (Sigismundus didn't get me off to a great start with that). I'm asking for the source of the AD 85 date...that's all.
Also, I've been studying eschatology for about as long...just for a little commonality between you and I.

ETA: I should also say, I do apologize for being so short with you. You're not the first person to complain about that, and you probably won't be the last...though, I would love it if you were (for the sake of my being a child of God...I'm working on it).


Sorry, I'll get to it tomorrow, I just spent 9 pages going round and round with some fool who said Einstein was wrong with E=mc^2.

I have no brain cells left tonight.

You're forgiven, no worries. I've had a short fuze day too. God Bless.




edit on 12-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Nice...one of those, eh? I've combatted a few of them, myself. Of course, I also used to be one of them, but still...I grew up (eventually).



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Nice...one of those, eh? I've combatted a few of them, myself. Of course, I also used to be one of them, but still...I grew up (eventually).


I figured it would sink in when I said it's been confirmed by 14 different methods to 19 decimal places. That's like a 10 with 18 zeroes after it. And to compare, there are only 10^19 atoms in the galaxy.

I mentioned this twice. Then get this, he did a "GOOGLE" search and came back with a quote that space and time are indistinguishable and said the debunked E=mc^2.

I had to immediate leave the thread at that point on mental health reasons alone. Anyways, I'm up, prayed up, and I can dig into your answers. Can't give a timetable, but before the end of the day I'll hopefully locate it.

God Bless.


edit on 13-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Still havent located the date. but am locating some info relevant:

The city gates, guard towers and walls were the first things to be rebuilt in cities. Think Nehemiah and Jerusalem. That's common sense, you can't rebuild the more important aspects of a city until it is first secured right?


The "Gate to Ephesus", was dedicated to Domitian when it was completed and stands to this day. (Note reign of Domitian)




Still searching...



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Polycarp, writes that Smyrna's church was founded after Paul's martyrdom in Rome (64-67 AD).

If that church came together after Paul's death (64-67ish), how could they have been present for Jesus to write a letter to in Revelation chapter 2? Early daters maintain that revelation was written between 66 and 69 AD. had Revelation been written that early Smyrna would just be in it's infancy. Late-date it would have been present and flourishing at that time.

Early date doesn't fit with Smyrna either, let alone Laodecia.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The only "early date" I can narrow Revelation down to is between AD 69 and 79, during the reign of Vespasian. And I would be inclined to place it after the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps ca. AD 75-78. That leaves plenty of time for Smyrna to mature.

Also, I appreciate your effort.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The only "early date" I can narrow Revelation down to is between AD 69 and 79, during the reign of Vespasian. And I would be inclined to place it after the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps ca. AD 75-78. That leaves plenty of time for Smyrna to mature.

Also, I appreciate your effort.


I can accept the date after 70 AD for obvious reasons from the text, but knowing how Roman penal system worked the prisoners of the Emperor could only be released from banishment when the Emperor died. That sets dates IMHO.

Thanks, still looking. My suspicion currently is 85 AD is a guess on my part from between 80 and 85 AD. And pushing it to the latter because of the death of Domitian. But still not finished looking...

Christ speaks in His letter to them about them rebuilding without assistance, and says even though they think they are rich they are spiritually poor in His eyes, "lukewarm".


edit on 13-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


There's hardly much difference between an AD 78/79 date and the year AD 80 at the low end of your range. We could just be splitting hairs.

As an aside...

The people who refer to John's exile are as follows:

- John himself (*though, see my note about this below)
- Irenaeus (AD 180)
- Tertullian (ca. AD 200)
- Hippolytus (ca. early 3rd century)
- Eusebius (AD 323)
- Jerome (AD 392)

*Now, note, John never says he was in exile on the island of Patmos. He says he "came to be on the island called Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Christ."
The Greek for "came to be" is egenomen, which is a verb in the middle voice. John is expressing that he is neither active nor passive in his being on Patmos. This would seem strange if he had, in fact, been passively exiled there. It seems somewhat more likely that, on this occasion, he was merely there to preach the Word of God and testify of Christ.

What Irenaeus says is that it/he was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign. That "it/he" could either be the vision or John. We can't conclude anything from this.

It is said that Tertullian, writing just 20 years after Irenaeus, made reference to John's exile being "relegatio," which is a limited exile decreed by a proconsul, not a full exile as ordered by an emperor. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track down this reference, though several people claim it exists.

It's not until Hippolytus in the early 3rd century that we have the first clear reference to John having been exiled to Patmos by Domitian. He writes, "John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."
This, of course, was at least 150 years after the fact.

This was also around the time of Eusebius, when, apparently, it was believed that Irenaeus, in his statements made 50 years earlier (as well as, incidentally, a decade or two after Irenaeus' death), was referring to John and not the vision when he wrote that "it/he was seen ... toward the end of Domitian's reign."
First, Eusebius reports that his source for the events that occurred during the reign of Domitian are Hegesippus, who wrote ca. AD 150 and of whom no works survive except 8 passages quoted by Eusebius.
Second, Eusebius says: "It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition."
At this time, the tale of John's exile was tradition.

And, finally, Jerome wrote a further 70 years after Eusebius, "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 Lord's passion and was buried near the same city." (De Viris Illustribus, Chapter IX)

So, there we have it. The birth and propagation of a tradition.
What we lack are facts. We only know one thing for sure: John was on the island of Patmos when he received the vision. Beyond that, all we have is tradition and hearsay.

I think what we may actually have is a condensation and confusion of history. I believe John was on Patmos somewhere between AD 69 and 79 (likely nearer the end of that period), where he received the vision; and I believe he was later exiled (possibly by a proconsul, or by the emperor himself) during the reign of Domitian. And I believe these two were later combined, forming the tradition that John had been exiled to Patmos by the emperor Domitian.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I also want to point out that, at the beginning of Book V, Chapter 30 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, he writes:

"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]."

If Irenaeus is writing 75 years after John's exile, then could he honestly call the earliest approved copies of the Revelation "ancient"?

Plus, here Irenaeus is saying that it was John who was seen. That ties in well with what he says just two paragraphs later - namely, that, "it/he was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join