Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Slaters' article in Biblica

Expand Messages
  • mloftus955
    Hi Ed, See my answer to Otto s post, basically I read the scripture itself and not rely on outside sources. The ancient sources may be christian but they are
    Message 1 of 7 , May 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Ed,
      See my answer to Otto's post, basically I read the scripture
      itself and not rely on outside sources. The ancient sources
      may be "christian" but they are just men. The internal
      evidence of the Revelation itself is the most trustworthy
      source in my view. There is a saying, "History is written
      by the winners". Besides, I am not tied to traditions.

      Mark



      --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Garcia" <Ed.Garcia@f...>
      wrote:
      > I am curious, what are your reasons for accepting the apostle John
      as
      > the writer of Revelation?
      >
      > Thank you.
      >
      > Ed Garcia
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: mloftus955 [mailto:mloftus955@y...]
      > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:26 PM
      > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Slaters' article in Biblica
      >
      >
      > I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe that
      the
      > apostle John wrote the Revelation.
      >
      > I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence for
      the
      > dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as a reliable
      > witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
      > to be about 50 years old. If it were a non religious ancient
      > writer making factual errors, it would objectively be considered non
      > reliable for that reason.
      >
      > It should also be noted that there are translation issues affecting
      > the proper understanding of what Irenaeus wrote. Also, his writing
      > was about a century after the fact. He referred to Polycarp (who
      > supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part - "it is
      > not long since it was seen" - is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus
      > recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in of AD 95-96, during the
      > last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it"
      > Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of
      > anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that
      > the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to
      > us through three people separated by three centuries.
      >
      > It is hard to put too much confidence in ancient writings which
      often
      > contradict each other. Some will readily accept these
      > uncritically because of tradition.
      >
      > Mark Loftus
      > Lansdowne, PA
      >
      >
      > --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Aleksandar Milanovic"
      > <amilanov@f...> wrote:
      > > Dear friends,
      > > Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B.
      > Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
      > http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )? What is your opinion about his
      > arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
      > > Sincerely,
      > > Alexander Milanovic
      > > Belgrade (Serbia)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.