Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

[John of Japan]

Yeah, and this same Church father, Irenaeus, also said that the Nicolaitans, were the followers of the Deacon Nicolas, mentioned in Acts 6:5, who was born-again! He became an apostate, thereby losing his salvation!

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols - Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3

Would you accept this testimony, which shows that a believer filled with the Holy Spirit, can lose their salvation?

It does not say that Nicolas was born again or filled with the Spirit, only that they had that criteria. And again, relevance to this discussion? (And by the way, your link does not lead to the quote.)

 

[SavedByGrace]

Relevance?

possible pre 70 AD date for the Book of Revelation

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is clear that the date of the writing of Revelation is, put put it mildly, somewhat in doubt.
Most understandings of the book do not depend on the precise date at which it was written It doesn't matter to me whether it was written before or after AD 70. I suggest that it is unwise to adopt a theological stance which is so dependent upon extra-biblical writings.

My three ha'pence (two cents to you).

 

[SavedByGrace]

It does not say that Nicolas was born again or filled with the Spirit, only that they had that criteria. And again, relevance to this discussion? (And by the way, your link does not lead to the quote.)

firstly, in Acts this is what it says about Nicolas, "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (verse 3). A person cannot be said to be "full of the Holy Ghost", and not saved!. You assume that this is not true, but you are wrong, as the Bible says that he did.

The relevance here is this, there are some who say that Irenaeus is wrong to say that the Deacon Nicolas, was the founder of the Nicolaitan Sect. If he can be wrong here, then why can't he be on the time that he says the Book of Revelation was written? He was not alive during the time, and wrote some 50 years after John had died, so it would be hear-say.

 

[SavedByGrace]

It is clear that the date of the writing of Revelation is, put put it mildly, somewhat in doubt.
Most understandings of the book do not depend on the precise date at which it was written It doesn't matter to me whether it was written before or after AD 70. I suggest that it is unwise to adopt a theological stance which is so dependent upon extra-biblical writings.

My three ha'pence (two cents to you).

surely it must be important to you, whether this Book was written before John died, which is about 100 AD; and not as some suggest, that it was written in the 2nd century, or later, and therefore cannot be the work of the Apostle John?, Free Online Bible Library | John The Elder

 

[Martin Marprelate]

surely it must be important to you, whether this Book was written before John died, which is about 100 AD; and not as some suggest, that it was written in the 2nd century, or later, and therefore cannot be the work of the Apostle John?, Free Online Bible Library | John The Elder

I don't believe for a second that it was written by anyone else than the Apostle John. My point is that it does not have to be written before or after AD 70 for my understanding of the book (Amillennialism) to work. I don't have to trust either Papias or Irenaeus.

 

[Reformed1689]

what is "funny" about #27?

The fact that you said there is no internal or external evidence. That's just nonsense.

 

[Reformed1689]

the Apostle John died about 100 AD, Irenaeus was born about 30 years later, and probably wrote 20 years later, so what he says is hear-say!

He has a direct line to John. And if John died in 100AD that would eliminate all of the events of Revelation happening in 70AD.

 

[John of Japan]

firstly, in Acts this is what it says about Nicolas, "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (verse 3). A person cannot be said to be "full of the Holy Ghost", and not saved!. You assume that this is not true, but you are wrong, as the Bible says that he did.

You missed the point. The Bible inerrantly quoted the disciples as saying that the candidates should be full of the Holy Spirit. What the Bible did not say is that all of the candidates were actually filled with the Spirit. The disciples could have been wrong about that as some were wrong about things elsewhere in Acts. The only one specifically said by the Bible to be actually filled with the Spirit was Philip (v. 5).

It is entirely possible to deceive people as to whether one is filled with the Spirit or not. Many Charismatics do this--claim the filling but then preach heresy.

The relevance here is this, there are some who say that Irenaeus is wrong to say that the Deacon Nicolas, was the founder of the Nicolaitan Sect. If he can be wrong here, then why can't he be on the time that he says the Book of Revelation was written? He was not alive during the time, and wrote some 50 years after John had died, so it would be hear-say.

Sure, he could have been wrong. But he said what he did, and that is external proof for a post AD 70 writing of Revelation, something you said you did not know existed. You have not proven that he was wrong, merely said he could be.

 

[John of Japan]

possible pre 70 AD date for the Book of Revelation

How?

 

[SavedByGrace]

That's just nonsense.

it is nonsense to those who have difficulty with the English language! Let us see what I did say in #27

have not seen any external or internal evidence provided by any scholar, that shows Revelation was not written before 70 AD. Do you know of any?

There is not evidence to say that Revelation had to have been written after AD 70. I have given a quote from 1 Clement, which some scholars say was written in the 60's AD, which is from the Book of Revelation. Do you understand?

 

[George Antonios]

not without the Lord's approval!

The sun rises in the East.

 

[John of Japan]

I have two translations of the Apostolic Fathers. Both place the writing of 1st Clement in the 90's.

"Its date was nearly simultaneous with the close of Diocletian's persecution, when the emperor's cousin, Flavius Clemens, the namesake of the writer, perished during or immediately after the year of his consulate (A.D. 95)" (J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 11).

"This explains the mention (in the opening chapter) of the Roman church's 'recent misfortunes' as a clear allusion to the notorious persecution of the Christians under the late emperor Domitian; and the most reasonable assumption therefore is that the epistle was written shortly after that persecution was brought to an end by the assassination of Domitian in September 96" (Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, p. 17).

We have not heard the names of any scholar who thinks differently so far.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You missed the point. The Bible inerrantly quoted the disciples as saying that the candidates should be full of the Holy Spirit. What the Bible did not say is that all of the candidates were actually filled with the Spirit. The disciples could have been wrong about that as some were wrong about things elsewhere in Acts. The only one specifically said by the Bible to be actually filled with the Spirit was Philip (v. 5).

It is entirely possible to deceive people as to whether one is filled with the Spirit or not. Many Charismatics do this--claim the filling but then preach heresy.


Sure, he could have been wrong. But he said what he did, and that is external proof for a post AD 70 writing of Revelation, something you said you did not know existed. You have not proven that he was wrong, merely said he could be.

Firstly, there is zero evidence from the passage in Acts 6 to even hint that those chosen were not all like Philip, "a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost". The Greek tells me that what was true for Philip, is also true for the others, "ἄνδρα πλήρη πίστεως καὶ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου, καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Πρόχορον καὶ Νικάνορα καὶ Τίμωνα καὶ Παρμενᾶν καὶ Νικόλαον προσήλυτον Ἀντιοχέα". The Disciples no doubt prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide them with this, and there is no way that the Holy Spirit would misguide them!

Secondly, you say, "that is external proof for a post AD 70 writing of Revelation, something you said you did not know existed". But this is NOT what I said in # 27! Here it is again:

have not seen any external or internal evidence provided by any scholar, that shows Revelation was not written before 70 AD. Do you know of any?

Here is what it means. There is NO real evidence to say that Revelation was not written BEFORE AD 70. Not, AFTER, as you say "POST"!

 

[SavedByGrace]

How?

because there are quotes in 1 Clement from the Book of Revelation, which some scholars say was written in the 60's AD. this is a real possibility.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have two translations of the Apostolic Fathers. Both place the writing of 1st Clement in the 90's.

"Its date was nearly simultaneous with the close of Diocletian's persecution, when the emperor's cousin, Flavius Clemens, the namesake of the writer, perished during or immediately after the year of his consulate (A.D. 95)" (J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 11).

"This explains the mention (in the opening chapter) of the Roman church's 'recent misfortunes' as a clear allusion to the notorious persecution of the Christians under the late emperor Domitian; and the most reasonable assumption therefore is that the epistle was written shortly after that persecution was brought to an end by the assassination of Domitian in September 96" (Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, p. 17).

We have not heard the names of any scholar who thinks differently so far.

yeah, JBL is only one such scholar

"G. Edmundson presents a good case for Clement writing this letter in the early months of 70 AD ((GE 180-205)). Robinson accepted that Edmundson’s case should be most seriously considered ((JATR 329)) and Thied has also adopted this date ((CTR 71)).,

DATING CLEMENT OF ROME’S LETTER AND HERMAS

 

[Reformed1689]

because there are quotes in 1 Clement from the Book of Revelation, which some scholars say was written in the 60's AD. this is a real possibility.

Some scholars, I'm sure those are the same scholars that try to early date Revelation. Not exactly good evidence here.

 

[John of Japan]

Firstly, there is zero evidence from the passage in Acts 6 to even hint that those chosen were not all like Philip, "a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost". The Greek tells me that what was true for Philip, is also true for the others, "ἄνδρα πλήρη πίστεως καὶ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου, καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Πρόχορον καὶ Νικάνορα καὶ Τίμωνα καὶ Παρμενᾶν καὶ Νικόλαον προσήλυτον Ἀντιοχέα". The Disciples no doubt prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide them with this, and there is no way that the Holy Spirit would misguide them!

Sorry, the και does not prove that they were all exactly the same as Philip, but only that they were chosen along with Philip.

Secondly, you say, "that is external proof for a post AD 70 writing of Revelation, something you said you did not know existed". But this is NOT what I said in # 27! Here it is again:

have not seen any external or internal evidence provided by any scholar, that shows Revelation was not written before 70 AD. Do you know of any?

Here is what it means. There is NO real evidence to say that Revelation was not written BEFORE AD 70. Not, AFTER, as you say "POST"!

You said you had not seen any evidence.... I get that. I showed you evidence. You deny it. So be it. No skin off my nose.

 

[John of Japan]

yeah, JBL is only one such scholar

Huh? I quoted two scholars, Lightfoot and Staniforth, whose book Early Christian Writings is a translation of the Apostolic Fathers.

 

[John of Japan]

yeah, JBL is only one such scholar

"G. Edmundson presents a good case for Clement writing this letter in the early months of 70 AD ((GE 180-205)). Robinson accepted that Edmundson’s case should be most seriously considered ((JATR 329)) and Thied has also adopted this date ((CTR 71)).,

DATING CLEMENT OF ROME’S LETTER AND HERMAS

Who is this Dennis Barton, the author of the document of your link, and why should I consider him to be a scholar? Near as I can tell from that website, he was some kind of Catholic, but where did he teach and why is he supposed to be a scholar?