by George 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • George

    "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 Domitians's reign." - Irenaeus, concerning the Antichrist, John, and the Revelation.

    Irenaeus' Statement, originally composed in Greek, comes down to us today only in Latin. Nevertheless, the text in question is found in the original Greek two times in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History.

    Those who believe that the Revelation was written long after the fall of Jerusalem, like the WTBTS, often quote Irenaeus to support their teaching. Yet they do not relate the rest of the facts concerning Irenaeus; this they do so that all of the evidence cannot be considered. So for the benefit of those who have not had the opportunity to consider the rest of the evidence the following is presented:

    1) Irenaeus' statement is held to be ambiguous by many grammarians. The problem is found in the fact that the expression "that was seen" or "it was seen" (as it is often translated) can also be translated "he was seen;" and that raises the question, "Which of the two antecedents, "he who saw" (John) or "Revelation," "was seen" almost in Irenaeus' time and near the end of the reign of Domitian? The possibility that John, who saw the Revelation, and was seen alive almost in Irenaeus' generation, was the intended antecedent cannot be ruled out. This meaning, which is accepted as correct by many grammarians, does not prevent the Revelation from having been written before the fall of Jerusalem.

    2) Irenaeus also wrote:

    "[Christ] came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old. . . .But 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, who in Asia
    conferred with John the Lord's disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but other also of the
    Apostles, and has this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:5.

    Can we rely on the testimony of a man, who claimed that Christ was between 40 and 50 when he taught, to be a reliable witness about dates?

    Surely, the WTBTS does not want you to know about these things when their sole means of support for the late-date of the writing of Revelation is from Irenaeus! Please consider my comments to their remarks (from their publication) concerning this matter:

    *** si 264 Bible Book Number 66-Revelation ***
    According to the earliest testimony, John wrote the Revelation about 96 C.E., approximately 26 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be toward the close of the reign of Emperor Domitian. In
    verification of this, Irenaeus in his "Against Heresies" (V, xxx) says of the Apocalypse: "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

    (From the evidence that I have presented above this view cannot be considered credible.)

    Eusebius and Jerome both agree with this testimony.

    (Eusebius lived sometime between 260 C.E. and 340. At best he was born 58 years after Irenaeus had died. And Jerome live from 340 C.E. until 420. Both of these witnesses were well removed from the time of Irenaeus, who lived from 130 C.E. until 202 C.E. In fact Irenaeus wrote over a century after the fall of Jerusalem, and never saw John at all.)

    Domitian was the brother of Titus, who led the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem. He became emperor at the death of Titus, 15 years before the book of Revelation was written.

    (This statement was based on the idea that the persecution that resulted in John's exile to Patmos came in the reign of Domitian and not in the reign of Nero. Yet nothing prevents John's exile from having occurred in the reign of Nero when that emperor persecuted Christians.)

    He demanded that he be worshipped as god and assumed the title Dominus et Deus noster (meaning "Our Lord and God"). Emperor worship did not disturb those who worshipped false gods, but it could not be indulged in by the early Christians, who refused to compromise their faith on this point. Thus, toward the close of Domitian's rule (81-96 C.E.), severe persecution came upon the Christians.

    (The WTBTS fails to mention the persecution under the reign of Nero in the mid-sixties, during which time John was exiled to Patmos. They also fail to mention that emperor worship existed in the time of Nero as well.)

    It is thought that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian. When Domitian was assassinated in 96 C.E., he was succeeded by the more tolerant emperor Nerva, who evidently released John. It was during this
    imprisonment on Patmos that John received the visions he wrote down.

    (John was released after the death of Nero in 68 C.E. The Revelation was written about 65 C.E. during the reign of the sixth king mentioned in Revelation 17:10 - Nero.)

    In addition, I have read that Eusebius wrote of John's banishment in the same sentence with the execution of Peter and Paul. Three scholars have seen a problem with this statement if one holds to the view that John wrote in 98 C.E. - F.N. Lee, "Revelation and Jerusalem"; A. R. Fausset, "Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Commentary; and P. S. Desprez, "The Apocalypse Fulfilled." Is it likely that John was banished twice? The Syriac "History of John, the Son of Zebedee" makes reference to John's banishment under Nero. It states: "After these things, when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles, Nero, the unclean and impure and wicked king, heard all that had happened at Ephesus. And he sent [and] took all that the procurator had, and imprisoned him; and laid hold of S. John and drove him into exile; and passed sentence on the city that it should be laid waste." I note also that both of the Syriac Versions of the Revelation give in the title the statement that John was banished by Nero - their titles say: "written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."

    The Watchtower wants you to believe that the Revelation was written after the fall of Jerusalem so that they can apply many of the prophecies that were fulfilled in 70 C.E. (the destruction of Jerusalem) to the time period beginning in 1914. If you want to find out about the other anachronism in their theology, which they use to support the date of 1914, consider my work Jehovah's Witnesses - 1914. (


  • Scorpion

    I think the WT may have read your work. The mention of 1914 is becoming more and more of an imbarrasement when confronted at the door to door work. We should not get caught up teaching dates that are not confirmed by the Bible or history. I think the WT has learned it's lesson, I hope.

  • George

    I know they read my work on Daniel, which is why they put me out. It was after that that I put up the article about 1914. The work on Daniel was just a result of personal research. You know how the Society always tries to get people to do personal study. But I think they want everyone to study Watchtower works and no others.

  • Scorpion


    I have not had time to check out your site yet but plan on doing so. I seem to learn the most from people that have a wide range of ideas and opinions that differ from mine. At the meetings I feel as though I am getting about an 8th grade education. I feel somewhat stalemated, if that is the word. I know the Society does not want active JWs like myself speaking with those that have been put out of the organization. But for what you say you were put out for, I see no evidence of wrong doing against Jehovah. I know of a brother (elder), well, an Xelder who was disfellowshipped for writting a letter to the Society because of some things that were being overlooked by the congregation elders that were of importance. The Society sent a letter back to the presiding overseer saying that this elder in question was causing dissension among the brothers. They conducted a judicial committee hearing and disfellowshipped him. I still have contact with this brother privately and still do consider him a spiritual brother. What happened to him was wrong. I have lost respect for three of the elders involved in this. Maybe I should not be typing this, but I feel you may have been given a raw deal too. Keep posting. I think you will find many on this forum that will accept you for you and not because of belonging or not belonging to an organized religion.

  • George

    It is the same old story over and over again. I have a few experiences somewhere which I have posted before on other sites about various things I witnessed while I was in good standing. I'll see if I can find them and post them here. Thank you for your kind words.


  • Scorpion

    I would be interested in what you have to say about this George. Thanks.

  • Lieu
    Fix that link, George ... it just takes me to AOL life stream home page
  • kairos
    16 year old thread
  • Lieu
    Weird, it was in the "Latest". ??????

Share this