Irenaeus dating revelation No cost ever sex chat site australia
On the other hand, at Domitian's death, the general public "greeted the news..indifference...", though the military was upset, and the senators of Rome were delighted.
Obviously one could justifiably call either Nero or Domitian a tyrant.
Eusebius also cites Irenaeus as saying that "..number is found in all the approved and ancient copies, and those who saw John face to face confirm it..." The emphasis on personal knowledge of John corresponds better with the referent being back to John in the main quote, rather than to his vision. Elsewhere Irenaeus says that John "continued with the Elders until the time of Trajan." It is argued that this means that Irenaeus would not refer to John as being seen until the time of Domitian; hence the referent in question must be the vision.
This is countered by the point that Irenaeus only says that John was seen until Domitian's reign, not that he died at the time.
Late in his reign Domitian did a few irrational things of relevance -- executing a boy because he looked and performed like an actor Domitian disliked; had an author executed, and his secretarial slaves crucified, for putting some allusions into a literary work; put Senators to death for conspiracy; put another person to death for wanting to celebrate a previous Emperor's birthday. His various irrationalities made him hated and feared everywhere.
But he never reached the level of cruelty and irrationality that Nero did.
One of his later projects, as he grew bald, was a book on caring for one's hair.
By the same token, the activities Clement ascribes to John -- running all over Asia, riding a horse chasing after an apostate church leader -- make more sense attributed to a man in his 50s or 60s than they do to a man in his 90s or 100s.
Finally, elsewhere Clement states that the teaching of the Apostles was completed at the time of Nero.
Let's draw some guidelines, somewhat modified (since we are not here defending the other central pole of authorship, but assuming John to have been Revelation's author) from that previous work, in which we used Tacitus' Annals as a point of comparison, beginning with external testimony. If others attribute a work to Tacitus at a certain date, then this is clear testimony that he wrote the document in question at a given date.
On the other hand, if some writer at some point (the closer to the time of Tacitus, the "better") either denies that Tacitus wrote a given work at the time specified, or else offers a different date, we may have reason to suspect the date of authorship.
Search for irenaeus dating revelation:
If the referent is the "him" then the passage makes sense: If giving the name was needed, John would have done so; and he also lived after the time of the book and had plenty of chances to explain himself, and the explanation would have been preserved for us had he given it.