Johannite Church ~AD 90

George Somsel said:

Alain Maashe said:

Feel free to correct me on that and show the legion of scholars that concur with you, this might help me get acquainted with more developed arguments than what you have presented so far

One man and the truth is a majority.  You appeal to a (or several) consensus(es) of opinion.  That is no proof.  There is a reason "John" chose to call Jesus "the morning star" and it does not refer to Num 24.17 since the reference is not terribly close.  The study of the Apocalypse went astray with the commentary of Victorinus of Pettau who is the first known to speak of the book as containing repetitions of the same theme.  It ends up with a situation somewhat akin to a dog chasing its tail.  Augustine discerned to true character of the book in The City of God in which he presented the theme as that of the conflict of the City of God with the worldview of man.  The Apocalypse is actually modelled on the Book of Enoch in which it commences with the Flood narrative.  The Flood is reflected in the rainbow around the head of Him that sits upon the throne in Cap 4 and the sea of crystal which reflects the waters which were above the earth.  After the judgment of that period, it proceeds to the sealing of both the 12 tribes of Israel and the great innumerable multitude of the Church in Cap 7.  The archetypes of the birth of Christ in Cap 12 and the casting of the Dragon out of heaven which is also reflected in the gospels.  In Cap 13 the unholy trinity of the Dragon, the Beast from the Sea and the Beast from the Land are presented in mockery of the trinity.  That this concerns the Jews is reflected by a similar mockery of Judaism in that the "name" of the Beast is on the RIGHT hand of his followers in contrast to the wearing of the phylacteries on the LEFT hand by the Jews.  The number 666 reflects not a gematria for the name of some individual but reflects the fact that man was created on the 6th day and is thus a further mockery of the trinity—man, man, man.  In Cap 14 we have the destruction of the Jewish civilization with the implied cooperation of the faithful Jews who stand with the Lamb on Mt Zion.  The Church is presented as ever "coming down from God out of Heaven" and never residing on earth since it is the archetype of the Church which is represented as filling the entire empire.  The gates to the City of God are 12 in keeping with the 12 patriarchs of Israel and the foundations of the city are the Twelve Apostles.  There is no millenial reign despite the representation of the saints as reigning for 1000 years since this refers to the life of each individual in accordance with the presentation in Enoch.  There is no end to the earth presented since there are always "dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murderers and idolators outside the city (i.e., outside the Church). 

You ask for authority?  I give you Augustine.  A book is generally read by beginning at the beginning and continuing to its conclusion without a continual return to the beginning.  The mistake has been to refer all martyrs mentioned in the book to those of the Church.

George,

I have to admit that I had a hard time following your train
of thought since you are jumping all over the place and barely addressed the
isssues.

Do you care to try again? I challenged your dating of the
book of Revelation around AD 132-35. The only argument you have presented is a very
tedious link between Bar Kokhba and the morning star of Rev 22:16.  This attempt at Parallelomania is guilty of the same fallacies that have plagued other
cases of Parallelomania .

If Augustine is your best witness then you might as well
give up now. He certainly disagrees with you about the dating and background of
the book.

I do not understand the purpose of the whole paragraph about
your understanding of a few chapters of Revelation. It appears to be more smoke
and mirrors to hide the fact that you have very little in term of evidence that
points to an AD 132-35 date. Even if your peculiar views were correct (something
I only grant for the sake of argument), it still does not help your dating. The
book of Enoch is generally dated 1-2 century BC and surely no later than the 1^st
century AD.  Even if John used it as a
template, it does not support a late date. How is your interpretation of the
various symbols pointing toward the date you advocate?

Even if you understand Revelation with the clarity of the
Neo at the end of the first Matrix movie, you still need to articulate your
views and support your conclusions with evidence is such a way that others can
also see the light and not just agree because, well, George said so and we know
George must be right… since he said so.

My mention of the great consensus among scholars who
disagree about everything else is not proof of the validity the common views,
it is a sign (the red flag kind) that those who come up with alternative views
much at least pause and ensure that they present a strong case for their views.
In view of the boldness with which you dismissed the accepted views, I expected
that you would present a smoking gun or at least solid and well thought
arguments. I must say that what you have presented does not even remotely qualify,
which is puzzling since you are supposed to be writing a commentary on
Revelation (if I remember correctly) and I assume you did your homework.

I know this is not going anywhere, but it is surely fun to keep you honest even though I know that George will be George. 

Alain Maashe said:

George,

I have to admit that I had a hard time following your train of thought since you are jumping all over the place and barely addressed the isssues.

Do you care to try again? I challenged your dating of the book of Revelation around AD 132-35. The only argument you have presented is a very tedious link between Bar Kokhba and the morning star of Rev 22:16.  This attempt at Parallelomania is guilty of the same fallacies that have plagued other cases of Parallelomania .

If Augustine is your best witness then you might as well give up now. He certainly disagrees with you about the dating and background of the book.

I do not understand the purpose of the whole paragraph about your understanding of a few chapters of Revelation. It appears to be more smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that you have very little in term of evidence that points to an AD 132-35 date. Even if your peculiar views were correct (something I only grant for the sake of argument), it still does not help your dating. The book of Enoch is generally dated 1-2 century BC and surely no later than the 1^st century AD.  Even if John used it as a template, it does not support a late date. How is your interpretation of the various symbols pointing toward the date you advocate?

Even if you understand Revelation with the clarity of the Neo at the end of the first Matrix movie, you still need to articulate your views and support your conclusions with evidence is such a way that others can also see the light and not just agree because, well, George said so and we know George must be right… since he said so.

My mention of the great consensus among scholars who disagree about everything else is not proof of the validity the common views, it is a sign (the red flag kind) that those who come up with alternative views much at least pause and ensure that they present a strong case for their views. In view of the boldness with which you dismissed the accepted views, I expected that you would present a smoking gun or at least solid and well thought arguments. I must say that what you have presented does not even remotely qualify, which is puzzling since you are supposed to be writing a commentary on Revelation (if I remember correctly) and I assume you did your homework.

I know this is not going anywhere, but it is surely fun to keep you honest even though I know that George will be George. 

It's good to know that I can regularly count on you to crawl out of the woodwork to be my bête noire.  Well, Holmes had his Moriorty, and I have you. 

You accuse me of jumping all over the place, but, if you trouble yourself to read the Apocalypse just once, you will find that I proceed straight through from beginning to end without any "recapitulations."  If you truly have difficulty understanding what I wrote, I suggest that you should print it out and give it to your students to read.  I'm sure that at least one of them will be able to explain it to you—even at DTS. 

As regards other indications that the Apocalypse was written at a later date than generally posited, there is more than simply the designation of Jesus as the "morning star", but this phrase points most directly to a defined period.  There are such items as the structure of the church which has by the time of the writing developed into a monarchical episcopacy and the development in the use of words such as μαρτυρία beyond the designation of "witness" to that of "martyrdom" as we find in, e.g., Irenaeus.  These, however, do not limit the time so exactly as "morning star."  If you want more, you'll need to wait for the book and read it there.