WoF and The date Revelation was written

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
When talking about what prophetic events the Book of Revelation is speaking (first century, first through future centuries, all future) it is important to understand WHEN the Book of Revelation was written. There are a number of dates given.

The one I like, because it meets my presuppositions, er, um, because it has all the historical, factual data to support it is 96 AD. If it truly was written at this late of a date, then the contents of Revelation could not possibly be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD (unless you have any evidence that John was being disingenuous).

So if you have well written support for any date for the authorship of the Book of Revelation -- and hopefully various writings that support each other -- then post then here. I would love to have all the information on the time of the writing of Revelation.

I'll start. This article has a typical conclusion, but it has depth that I seldom see in a single article.

 

Tallen

Active member
When talking about what prophetic events the Book of Revelation is speaking (first century, first through future centuries, all future) it is important to understand WHEN the Book of Revelation was written. There are a number of dates given.

The one I like, because it meets my presuppositions, er, um, because it has all the historical, factual data to support it is 96 AD. If it truly was written at this late of a date, then the contents of Revelation could not possibly be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD (unless you have any evidence that John was being disingenuous).

So if you have well written support for any date for the authorship of the Book of Revelation -- and hopefully various writings that support each other -- then post then here. I would love to have all the information on the time of the writing of Revelation.

I'll start. This article has a typical conclusion, but it has depth that I seldom see in a single article.

I wish Ted Letis was still alive..., I would get him in this discussion.

I got him in a few discussions on CARM before he died... it was truly inspiring. Nobody knew who he was because he used a different handle on forums.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
When talking about what prophetic events the Book of Revelation is speaking (first century, first through future centuries, all future) it is important to understand WHEN the Book of Revelation was written. There are a number of dates given.

The one I like, because it meets my presuppositions, er, um, because it has all the historical, factual data to support it is 96 AD. If it truly was written at this late of a date, then the contents of Revelation could not possibly be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD (unless you have any evidence that John was being disingenuous).

So if you have well written support for any date for the authorship of the Book of Revelation -- and hopefully various writings that support each other -- then post then here. I would love to have all the information on the time of the writing of Revelation.

I'll start. This article has a typical conclusion, but it has depth that I seldom see in a single article.



Kenneth Gentry wrote, Before Jerusalem Fell, his doctoral thesis on the very subject... The 96 date comes from one Church Father 100 years later and everyone else uses it. I can show you numerous others who held to an earlier date...

There is lots of internal evidence to the Book of Revelation for an early date... Here's one example:

Revelation 11:1
1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

John is told to measure the Temple... The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD... Revelation had to be written before the destruction of the Temple so John could measure it...

Another:

Revelation 17:9-11
New King James Version
9 “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to [a]perdition.

Five Kings have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come... King number 1 was Julius Caesar, the "one is" is probably Nero... Again, before 70 AD...
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member

Kenneth Gentry wrote, Before Jerusalem Fell, his doctoral thesis on the very subject... The 96 date comes from one Church Father 100 years later and everyone else uses it. I can show you numerous others who held to an earlier date...
Well, that discredits just about all of the New Testament, since Paul wrote it and everyone else uses it.

So Clement, Eusebius, Origen, Irenaeus and others don't have a critical and intelligent mind of their own? For all of these have written that Paul wrote the book of Revelation during the reign of Domitian. Also there was no one in this early time that argued for a date before 70 AD.

There is lots of internal evidence to the Book of Revelation for an early date... Here's one example:

Revelation 11:1
1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

John is told to measure the Temple... The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD... Revelation had to be written before the destruction of the Temple so John could measure it...
John is being shown a vision of the future temple and is told to measure it. Quite clear in context.

So, why, suddenly do we have a real angel, a real staff, need a real temple for John to measure? What happened to the symbology?

But ok.
  • Do you have 42 months of Gentiles trampling? (yes/no will suffice) (btw, the answer is no)
  • Who are the two witnesses?
  • Who killed them? And where is the recorded news that two men who were killed came back to life?
  • And we need an earthquake in Jerusalem that kills 7,000 people and 1/10th of Jerusalem collapses. This should be recorded. Does Josephus mention it? It would have been quite the scene.
Or is it all symbolic.

Or maybe it is a vision being shown to John in 96 AD of a future time.

Another:

Revelation 17:9-11
New King James Version
9 “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to [a]perdition.

Five Kings have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come... King number 1 was Julius Caesar, the "one is" is probably Nero... Again, before 70 AD...
YP, you are "fitting" people over the prophecy. This proves nothing. So we choose Nero as "one is" and then count back 5 to get to Julius Caesar??

But you have a problem there. Julius Caesar was never an emperor of the Roman Empire. Augustus Caesar was the first emperor. Julius Caesar was the LAST leader (consul, then dictator; not emperor) of the Roman Republic. So if Nero is to be designated a "King," then emperors are the "Kings." And that only goes back to Augustus. So you only have four fallen "Kings." (More slight problems in that the Republic and the Empire despised the title "King" - see below.)

If you want to get even more critical, the leaders in the Roman Republic were called Consuls. There were usually two elected to keep them from becoming a King or a dictator. Julius Caesar was elected with a man named Marcus Bibulus, and only much later took control and became a dictator. Oddly, his enemies thought that he was going to take the title of "King" and this led to his assassination -- so he was never a "King."

PRIOR TO the Roman Republic, there were Kings. It was the period of the Seven Early Kings of Ancient Rome. The fact was that during the Roman Republic, then frowned upon the title King, having removed themselves from that type of rule. Thus the Consuls, with two being elected so no single man had such power.
 

timtams

Member
When talking about what prophetic events the Book of Revelation is speaking (first century, first through future centuries, all future) it is important to understand WHEN the Book of Revelation was written. There are a number of dates given.

The one I like, because it meets my presuppositions, er, um, because it has all the historical, factual data to support it is 96 AD. If it truly was written at this late of a date, then the contents of Revelation could not possibly be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD (unless you have any evidence that John was being disingenuous).

So if you have well written support for any date for the authorship of the Book of Revelation -- and hopefully various writings that support each other -- then post then here. I would love to have all the information on the time of the writing of Revelation.

I'll start. This article has a typical conclusion, but it has depth that I seldom see in a single article.

This article can be challenged at multiple points. The evidence favors the early date imo. If you wish to go into depth and discuss this, we can.
 

timtams

Member
So Clement, Eusebius, Origen, Irenaeus and others don't have a critical and intelligent mind of their own? For all of these have written that Paul [sic] wrote the book of Revelation during the reign of Domitian. Also there was no one in this early time that argued for a date before 70 AD.
Of all of those, only Eusebius clearly and unambiguously placed John's exile late in Domitian's reign. Irenaeus is somewhat ambiguous and his words could mean either "John was seen" or "the vision was seen." The context, the ancient Latin translation, and Irenaeus's other statements elsewhere in the book all point toward "John was seen" imo.

Clement doesn't specifically say when John was exiled, and he is better evidence for an early date. His John is running and chasing people and shouting following the exile. If this were in the 90s, he would be an old man, and Jerome says that according to tradition, John couldn't walk and could barely talk in his old age.
Origen says nothing either way about the date.

So you see the evidence isn't nearly as strong as people make out.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
This article can be challenged at multiple points. The evidence favors the early date imo. If you wish to go into depth and discuss this, we can.
Let's see how you do with Rokovsky first. You won't like me. A couple people here tolerate me. But I bite and spit and act like a child, or so I'm told. So comment on my posts, if you'd like. I doubt I'll meet you at the depth that it appears you may like to talk. Some here might. But the scholarship majority does not agree with early dating - regardless of their eschatology. I'll go with the scholarship - at least how I read them with my rose colored glasses. :ROFLMAO:
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Of all of those, only Eusebius clearly and unambiguously placed John's exile late in Domitian's reign. Irenaeus is somewhat ambiguous and his words could mean either "John was seen" or "the vision was seen." The context, the ancient Latin translation, and Irenaeus's other statements elsewhere in the book all point toward "John was seen" imo.

Clement doesn't specifically say when John was exiled, and he is better evidence for an early date. His John is running and chasing people and shouting following the exile. If this were in the 90s, he would be an old man, and Jerome says that according to tradition, John couldn't walk and could barely talk in his old age.
Origen says nothing either way about the date.
...
So you see the evidence isn't nearly as strong as people make out.
You've shown no evidence to make out.

You've shown "could mean," "point toward," "imo." You've shown "according to tradition," "Origen says nothing."

This is not "evidence." This is heresay.

I don't find Iranaeus ambiguous at all - but then I don't assume him to be an old, feeble, lame, blind, three feet in the grave, old man. The "statement by early church father Irenaeus (A.D. 120- 202) around A.D. 180 puts him clearly in Domitian's reign:

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 not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.​
-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, v. xxx. 3​

When was the end of Domitian's reign. Irenaeus also tells us that Paul saw the "times of Trajan." When was this?

As for Origen, in his commentary on John he says of Jerusalem and the end times:

For thy sun shall no more go down, and thy moon shall not fail, for thy Lord shall be to thee an everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ful-filled." These prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come, and they are addressed to the children of Israel in their captivity, to whom He was sent and came, who said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."​

Sounds like ... no, doesn't sound like -- he says specifically: "These prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come." Although your well selected statement actually is true: he "says nothing either way about the date." Just the age.
 

timtams

Member
So that's your evidence? You falsely claimed Clement and Origen but who cares, let's just turn it around and make me the bad guy? lol. What should I do about Irenaeus? Scholars say that the interpretation of his words are up for debate, but you say "you" don't find them ambiguous. Wow, case closed. Your earlier post was on the money, for sure.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
So that's your evidence?
My evidence is what I've written so far in this thread. Not enough? Too bad.

You falsely claimed Clement and Origen but who cares,
I do. Not really, but...

I gave you Origen's words. Not false simply Nevada you don't like them. Future age.

Don't remember commenting on Clement, who was mentioned in the article I posted. Otherwise I made no claims on Clement, and only asked one question about his intelligence.

let's just turn it around and make me the bad guy? lol.
Well, I told you that you wouldn't like me.

What should I do about Irenaeus? Scholars say that the interpretation of his words are up for debate,
Some people say this. Some don't. You choose those that met your presuppositions. Pfft.

but you say "you" don't find them ambiguous. Wow, case closed. Your earlier post was on the money, for sure.
Yes. I warned you. 😉
 
Last edited:

timtams

Member
My evidence is what I've written so far in this thread. Not enough? Too bad.

You haven't provided evidence. You stated that Clement and Origen support the late date, even though they are silent on the matter. Instead of conceding the point, you turn it around and make me the bad guy.

I do. Not really, but...

I gave you Origen's words. Not false simply Nevada you don't like them. Future age.

You apparently seem to think that because Origen wasn't a preterist, he must have been a late dater. Ever heard of a non sequitur buddy?


Well, I told you that you wouldn't like me.

You were right.

Some people say this. Some don't. You choose those that met your presuppositions. Pfft.

Actually I would have been happy to discuss the pros and cons of both views, and I pointed out (and would have documented) that it is supported by the context, the ancient Latin translation, and by other passages in Irenaeus. Did you not notice that you're the one who, without even hearing the other side, decided to accept the interpretation of Irenaeus that met your presuppositions. No, that didn't occur to you, did it?

Yes. I warned you. 😉

Oh yes, you certainly did.
 
Last edited:

timtams

Member
Don't remember commenting on Clement, who was mentioned in the article I posted. Otherwise I made no claims on Clement, and only asked one question about his intelligence.
You don't "remember"? Here, let me refresh your memory:


So Clement, Eusebius, Origen, Irenaeus and others don't have a critical and intelligent mind of their own? For all of these have written that Paul [sic] wrote the book of Revelation during the reign of Domitian.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
You haven't provided evidence. You stated that Clement and Origen support the late date, even though they are silent on the matter. Instead of conceding the point, as would reasonably be expected from any rational and emotionally-adjusted person, you turn it around and make me the bad guy, like one might reasonably expect from someone with sociopathic tendencies. Which makes my very act of attempting to reason in this post futile and pointless. But I'm a sucker.
I gave you Origen's words. You ignore them.

And now I've got sociopathic tendencies. You're beautiful.

"As would reasonably be expected from any rational and emotionally-adjusted person." Do you know me? Or are you clairvoyant? You've talked to me for a few posts and now I am emotionally maladjusted. Well, I guess a person who's wife recently died in a violent, ugly battle with cancer that ate her body from skin to bone just might not be on his best emotional behavior. So nice call. But certainly not to the point of being sociopathic.

And where did I make you a "bad guy?" I said (paraphrased) "here's my evidence. If it is not enough, too bad. I'm not working to go get anything else I know." A nonparticipation comment. Remember: you said (paraphrased): "hey, you want to talk about this?" I said, "no, not to the depth you'd be interested in. There may be others who do." And you sat down and started talking to me. And I'm the sociopath? But hey, you talked. I responded. You didn't like my response, ignored it, and said I haven't provided evidence.

You apparently seem to think that because Origen wasn't a preterist, he must have been a late dater. Ever heard of a non sequitur buddy?
I have no idea whatsoever whether Origen was a preterist. But since he died long before organized preterist thought developed, you may be right. (In fact I only recently was introduced to the term Preterist by a friend on these boards.) And since Origen CLEARLY said that the prophecies are for a future age, I'd be safe to place him as a late dater and "non-sequitur" goes up in smoke.

But you keep chucking the ad homs, ok? I'll sit and catch them in my emotionally maladjusted hands.

You were right.
I have discernment when it comes to people. I knew we'd never make it.

Actually I would have been happy to discuss the pros and cons of both views, and I pointed out (and would have documented) that it is supported by the context, the ancient Latin translation, and by other passages in Irenaeus. Did you not notice that you're the one who, without even hearing the other side, decided to accept the interpretation of Irenaeus that met your presuppositions. No, that didn't occur to you, did it?
Funny, you just got done telling me that I was right that you wouldn't like me. So that's established: you don't like me. And now you want to say that you'd "have been happy to discuss" with me? Nah. You would definitely not be happy. Like I said, there may be a few others on this board who would maybe have that discussion. On your first post to me, I went and read a lot of your posts to get a feel for who you are. Again, I knew we'd never make it.

So I have presuppositions (everyone does) and you determined my presuppositions from one post? You determined that I have never - in my entire life - looked into another side of an argument like this (when Paul wrote Rev.)? From a few posts? And I know you didn't go off and read many of my posts or you would know about my "emotional maladjustment." You seem to know so much about me that you could tell me things about myself that I don't even know, couldn't you?

Oh yes, you certainly did.
And you jumped right in head first.
 
Last edited:

timtams

Member
I gave you Origen's words. You ignore them.

You claimed he placed Revelation late in Domitian's reign. He didn't. Now I'm the bad guy: now I "ignore" him. smh.

And where did I make you a "bad guy?" I said "here's my evidence. If it is not enough, too bad. I'm not working to go get anything else I know."
oh I don't know, maybe implying I was deliberately selectively quoting Origen while still refusing to concede your claim about him was erroneous (as you do with Clement, below). Origen did not place Revelation in Domitian's reign, period, but then you accuse me of "ignoring" him when I point this out. You know, that kind of thing. Apparently these are all normal behaviors for you.




A nonparticipation comment. Remember: you said (paraphrased): "hey, you want to talk about this?" I said, "no, not to the depth you'd be interested in. There may be others who do." And you sat down and started talking to me. And I'm the sociopath? But hey, you talked. I responded. You didn't like my response, ignored it, and said I haven't provided evidence.
Not quite. I wrote a brief response, closing the conversation. However, you proceeded to respond to a post I made before your post. You contort everything, and put the worst possible spin on it, imputing the worst possible motives.



I have no idea whatsoever whether Origen was a preterist. But since he died long before organized preterist thought developed, you may be right. (In fact I only recently was introduced to the term Preterist by a friend on these boards.) And since Origen CLEARLY said that the prophecies are for a future age, I'd be safe to place him as a late dater and "non-sequitur" goes up in smoke.
So now we're playing word games. Instead of conceding that Origen might have been an early dater even while not being preterist, you're implying that all non-preterists are late daters and thereby claiming that the non sequitur goes up in smoke. No buddy, stating that non-preterists can be safely assumed to be late daters is a non sequitur. There are early daters who are not preterist. Look it up.



I have discernment when it comes to people. I knew we'd never make it.

I'm sure it doesn't take a crystal ball for you to figure out that you are going to antagonize most people.

So I have presuppositions (everyone does) and you determined my presuppositions from one post? You determined that I have never - in my entire life - looked into another side of an argument like this (when Paul wrote Rev.)? From a few posts?
Exaggeration and putting words in someone' mouth. You demonstrated that you weren't aware of the argument for understanding Irenaeus as referring to John as the one who was seen when you wrote: "I don't find Irenaeus ambiguous at all - but then I don't assume him to be an old, feeble, lame, blind, three feet in the grave, old man." And if you were aware of the arguments, that would mean that you deliberately ignored them and created a straw man. Either way, ....
 
Last edited:

timtams

Member
So where is my comment on Clement? That one came directly from the article - except for your catch of my use of Paul instead of John. Good catch.
No, you weren't quoting the article. You repeated the claims of this article (which has "a depth" you've seldom seen elsewhere), and you didn't bother checking the claims, and you repeated them in your own words. Anything else is twisting things.

First you pretend that you didn't make the argument, and now you claim that you were only quoting the article? No, you repeated and owned the argument. Now own you were wrong, and that you didn't bother to check it out first. Don't throw the author of the article under your bus. Don't pretend you never said it when you did say it.

And after you repeat things without checking, you have the audacity to claim my evidence is "hearsay"? Dude, can you ever take responsibility for anything? You were wrong. Your claims were wrong. You were refuted. Period. Repeat it to yourself in the mirror a few times.
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
Huh?
So you repeated the claims
Ya-huh-uh. I pointed to the claims.

of this article with "a depth" you've seldom seen elsewhere,
Yes, the article has a depth that generally doesn't show up "in a single article". Not my depth. The article's depth. Just to be clear.

and you didn't bother checking the claims,
And you know this....how? And you know my history of things I've read, checked, liked, hated....what else? You are like Tyrion in Game of Thrones: you drink and you know things. So if I've been down that road before, do I need to go there again and again and again? I guess to be able to quote an article that supports my position, I need an advanced degree.

Look, a friend and I were talking. I started a post to get information about what we were talking about (which does not, of course, preclude others from coming in and offering information or asking questions). The struck out phrase in my OP is a joke between me and him. So I started the conversation, mostly because in my reading and research I found this article. It was good. I offered it up.

and you repeated them in your own words,
I said what the article said.

and now your claims have been refuted
Nope. On two levels: (1) I made no claim; I offered an article. (2) The claims of the article haven't been refuted.

you claim that you were only quoting the article?
I was always only quoting from the article.

No, you owned the argument.
This must be a phrase from your childhood, huh?

Now own you were wrong,
I wasn't.

and that you didn't bother to check it out first.
I was offering an article for discussion with my friend.

Don't throw the author of the article under your bus.
I have never disparaged the author of the article. It is a fine article that shows late dating.

And after you repeat things without checking, you have the audacity to claim my evidence is "heresay" (sic: hearsay)?
You said: "could mean," "point toward," "imo." You've shown "according to tradition," "Origen says nothing."

This is evidence? "It could mean?" That's evidence? "imo" (in my opinion)? That's evidence? "According to tradition?" Evidence? And you didn't even prove that it was "according to tradition," we are just supposed to call you the expert and believe you at your word. In your opinion. Pffft.

Dude, can you ever take responsibility for anything?
I offered up an article to read and now my posts are a thesis?

You were wrong.
No, I wasn't.

Your claims were wrong.
I made no claim. I supported the article. The article made claims.
You were refuted.
No, actually I wasn't.

Comma. (See I can mention random pieces of punctuation too.)

Repeat it to yourself in the mirror a few times.
Yes, I can offer up articles to read that are not my words.
Yes, I can offer up articles to read that are not my words.
Yes, I can offer up articles to read that are not my words.
 

timtams

Member
Nope. On two levels: (1) I made no claim; I offered an article. (2) The claims of the article haven't been refuted.


I was always only quoting from the article.

Doesn't matter how many times you deny what you did. It just proves what I said. You were "only quoting from the article" huh? Really? Let's look again. Yodas Prodigy claimed:

"Kenneth Gentry wrote, Before Jerusalem Fell, his doctoral thesis on the very subject... The 96 date comes from one Church Father 100 years later and everyone else uses it. I can show you numerous others who held to an earlier date"

And you responded:

So Clement, Eusebius, Origen, Irenaeus and others don't have a critical and intelligent mind of their own? For all of these have written that Paul wrote the book of Revelation during the reign of Domitian. Also there was no one in this early time that argued for a date before 70 AD.


Your claim. Your false claim. Origen and Clement don't even mention Domitian. For some reason you 1) won't accept you said what you said, even though you were attempting to give your answer to someone else's claim. 2) won't accept that they don't offer evidence for the late date.

Instead you deny making a claim about Clement and pretend that you were only asking about Clement's iq level! Seriously!


Don't remember commenting on Clement, who was mentioned in the article I posted. Otherwise I made no claims on Clement, and only asked one question about his intelligence.

smh.
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
You're a funny Pendant.

Doesn't matter how many times you deny what you did. It just proves what I said. You were "only quoting from the article" huh? Really? Let's look again. Yodas Prodigy claimed:

"Kenneth Gentry wrote, Before Jerusalem Fell, his doctoral thesis on the very subject... The 96 date comes from one Church Father 100 years later and everyone else uses it. I can show you numerous others who held to an earlier date"

And you responded:
BlessedAnomaly said:
So Clement, Eusebius, Origen, Irenaeus and others don't have a critical and intelligent mind of their own? For all of these have written that Paul wrote the book of Revelation during the reign of Domitian. Also there was no one in this early time that argued for a date before 70 AD.
Let's see. I responded: "For all of these have written..." I guess what they wrote immediately becomes my claim.

"...that Paul [sic; should be John] wrote the book of Revelation during the reign of Domitian." So where does this say that all of these men (or, specifically Clement and Origen) that they mentioned Domitian by name? You're claim is that they don't. But who said they did? I never said they mention him by name.


What I said was, specifically in response to you, was--
As for Origen, in his commentary on John he says of Jerusalem and the end times:
For thy sun shall no more go down, and thy moon shall not fail, for thy Lord shall be to thee an everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ful-filled." These prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come, and they are addressed to the children of Israel in their captivity, to whom He was sent and came, who said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."​

Sounds like ... no, doesn't sound like -- he says specifically: "These prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come." Although your well selected statement actually is true: he "says nothing either way about the date." Just the age.

Origen wrote that "these prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come." Origen (in his own words) "clearly" refer to prophecies yet to be fulfilled. If Origen believed early authorship, then he would question whether it was 70 AD or future. He would juxtapose the two as options, even if he didn't take a side. He does not offer 70 AD as a solution. "These prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come." He tells us what the answer "clearly" is.

Your claim.
I made no claim.

Your false claim.
You're pedantic.

Origen and Clement don't even mention Domitian.
Non-sequitur.

For some reason you 1) won't accept you said what you said, even though you were attempting to give your answer to someone else's claim. 2) won't accept that they don't offer evidence for the late date.
You bore me with your repetition.

Well, I gave the reason why. You didn't like that either.
Because in the end it was "in your opinion." During it, it was "could mean."

And as I said, I'm a sucker for wasting my time trying to get you to see the obvious, for the reasons stated.
I told you that you wouldn't like me. You should listen to me more often. I'm right most of the time. ;) :LOL:
 
Top