Why the Rev was written before 70 AD

[Interplanner]

(reprinted from CF by "ASIC" from a year ago)

[FONT=&quot]1 - The time statement in Revelation 1:1 refers to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here.


2 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while, Galba, 6 months who was the seventh.


3 - If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy. The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.


4 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about “soon” events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the “soon” future of 96 AD.


5 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666. This is very strong evidence that Caesar Nero really was the one being referred to as the beast and that the change from 666 to 616 in some manuscripts was intentional for that very reason. It is nearly impossible to find any other person's name in that time frame that would do this!


6 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.


7 – Early Syrian versions of the Book of Revelation has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.


8 - If in Revelation 11:1 John the Evangelist is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future he is sent to measure, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!!!


9 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.



10 - According to the epistles to the churches and Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, there were still Judaizers presenting problems in the churches. This particular issue would be ridiculous after the holocaust of 70 AD and the resulting diaspora of nearly all in Israel except for the less “religious”.






[/FONT]

 

[shturt678]

(reprinted from CF by "ASIC" from a year ago)

[FONT=&quot]1 - The time statement in Revelation 1:1 refers to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here.


2 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while, Galba, 6 months who was the seventh.


3 - If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy. The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.


4 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about “soon” events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the “soon” future of 96 AD.


5 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666. This is very strong evidence that Caesar Nero really was the one being referred to as the beast and that the change from 666 to 616 in some manuscripts was intentional for that very reason. It is nearly impossible to find any other person's name in that time frame that would do this!


6 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.


7 – Early Syrian versions of the Book of Revelation has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.


8 - If in Revelation 11:1 John the Evangelist is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future he is sent to measure, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!!!


9 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.



10 - According to the epistles to the churches and Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, there were still Judaizers presenting problems in the churches. This particular issue would be ridiculous after the holocaust of 70 AD and the resulting diaspora of nearly all in Israel except for the less “religious”.






[/FONT]

More like an allll morning study, ie, thank you again, and a head's up for agreeing to disagree response as always have appreciated you and your words.

 

[shturt678]

(reprinted from CF by "ASIC" from a year ago)

[FONT=&quot]1 - The time statement in Revelation 1:1 refers to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here.

Rev.1:3, "for the period is near" is the best commentary on Rev.1:1, "...the things that must occur shortly;..." not forgetting, "and he signified (them),"

Rev.1:1, "shortly": = / = "swiftly" as in 70 A.D. Even when John received the visions, the times and the seasons remained veiled. The things John saw would occur shortly, the time for them was "near." How much time would be required before the end would be reached, eg, 70 A.D.? is not intimated here.

Rev.1:3, "For the period is near," the kairos during which these things shall occur. The term always denotes a season or a period, longer or shorter, that is marked by what it contains; xronos, "time," has no such connection, it just extends. The "shortly" and "period" for the occurance of what Revelation records was clearly near in the year 95, ie, physical horrors along with the more serious SPIRITUAL DECEPTIONS.

2 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while, Galba, 6 months who was the seventh.


3 - If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy. The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.


4 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about “soon” events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the “soon” future of 96 AD.


5 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666. This is very strong evidence that Caesar Nero really was the one being referred to as the beast and that the change from 666 to 616 in some manuscripts was intentional for that very reason. It is nearly impossible to find any other person's name in that time frame that would do this!


6 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.


7 – Early Syrian versions of the Book of Revelation has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.


8 - If in Revelation 11:1 John the Evangelist is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future he is sent to measure, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!!!


9 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.



10 - According to the epistles to the churches and Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, there were still Judaizers presenting problems in the churches. This particular issue would be ridiculous after the holocaust of 70 AD and the resulting diaspora of nearly all in Israel except for the less “religious”.






[/FONT]

Humble pie Jack

 

[shturt678]

(reprinted from CF by "ASIC" from a year ago)

[FONT=&quot]1 - The time statement in Revelation 1:1 refers to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here.

2 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while, Galba, 6 months who was the seventh.

Rev.17:12, the ten horn kings are simply to be all the powers of the beast, ie, the sum total of the antichristian power. Not so much physical persecutions, but spiritual where the cause leads to the physical effects, ie, I think it's better to focus on the cause being the turthful direction intepretation of Rev.17 for a good kickstart.

3 - If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy. The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.

4 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about “soon” events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the “soon” future of 96 AD.


5 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666. This is very strong evidence that Caesar Nero really was the one being referred to as the beast and that the change from 666 to 616 in some manuscripts was intentional for that very reason. It is nearly impossible to find any other person's name in that time frame that would do this!


6 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.


7 – Early Syrian versions of the Book of Revelation has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.


8 - If in Revelation 11:1 John the Evangelist is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future he is sent to measure, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!!!


9 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.



10 - According to the epistles to the churches and Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, there were still Judaizers presenting problems in the churches. This particular issue would be ridiculous after the holocaust of 70 AD and the resulting diaspora of nearly all in Israel except for the less “religious”.






[/FONT]

 

[Biblewriter]

(reprinted from CF by "ASIC" from a year ago)

[FONT=&quot]1 - The time statement in Revelation 1:1 refers to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here.


2 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while, Galba, 6 months who was the seventh.


3 - If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy. The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.


4 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about “soon” events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the “soon” future of 96 AD.


5 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666. This is very strong evidence that Caesar Nero really was the one being referred to as the beast and that the change from 666 to 616 in some manuscripts was intentional for that very reason. It is nearly impossible to find any other person's name in that time frame that would do this!


6 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.


7 – Early Syrian versions of the Book of Revelation has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.


8 - If in Revelation 11:1 John the Evangelist is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future he is sent to measure, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!!!


9 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.



10 - According to the epistles to the churches and Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, there were still Judaizers presenting problems in the churches. This particular issue would be ridiculous after the holocaust of 70 AD and the resulting diaspora of nearly all in Israel except for the less “religious”.






[/FONT]

All this is indeed compelling if, but only if, you start with the first stated assumption, that "[FONT=&quot]The time statement in Revelation 1:1 refers to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance.[/FONT]"

That is the problem with this entire line of reasoning it is what some call circular logic and what others call elliptical reasoning. The logic is, "I know that what I am saying is correct, therefore it has to be correct." But you cannot prove anything by starting with the assumption that it is true. If you do not start without such an assumption, you have proved exactly nothing.

 

[Interplanner]

But there are other internal reasons BW and you being interp-free (the only one in the world) don't see them.

 

[lismore]

2 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty.

Hello There.

Is Augustus not the first Emperor?

List of Roman emperors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Interplanner]

Thanks Lismore. I pasted this from "ASCI," another participant. I hadn't noticed.

 

[ebedmelech]

All this is indeed compelling if, but only if, you start with the first stated assumption, that "[FONT=&quot]The time statement in Revelation 1:1 refers to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance.[/FONT]"

That is the problem with this entire line of reasoning it is what some call circular logic and what others call elliptical reasoning. The logic is, "I know that what I am saying is correct, therefore it has to be correct." But you cannot prove anything by starting with the assumption that it is true. If you do not start without such an assumption, you have proved exactly nothing.

Truly compelling if you read the letters to the seven churches though! They fuel the fire as John warns of tribulation to some of them. Others it warns of chastisement of the very nature described in the "Olivet Discourse". Indeed...it is compelling!

Now when you follow the Darby "illogical logic" of "seven church ages"...that's where you simply violate the text..because NOTHING allows you to consider them as "church ages" but "creative thinking".

John doesn't begin to deliver the vision until verse 10!!! It is at that point that one should begin to "signify" (translateted "communicate" in verse 1 which is "sēmainō" in the Greek). John says "Iwas in the Spirit on the Lords day"... therefore it is there...that you begin to relate to the symbolism in the vision!

So Interplanner is quite compelling in his logic!

 

[Notrash]

Add that rev 15:3 says that the saints sing the song of moses which is deut 32 and which refers to the latter end sword and judgement upon the mosaic covt peoples who persisted in disbelief and who persecuted and provoked hus sons and daughters of the new way of justificatiin by faith (in Jesus). Paul and Peter and the writer of Hebrews all quote drom or refer to deut 32 no less than 8 times and up to 10 or more times if we include the parallel chapter of Is 59.

Ireneous's often refered to statement indicates that the name of this individual (anti-christ to his understanding) would have been revealed to them if it was needfulfull for them to know his name, by HIM who beheld the vision, for HE [or that disciple] was seen not so long ago, even in or almost in our day, during the reign of domitian. The subject is John, and his not naming the name, not the vision nor the date of its occurrance.

John ministered to the churches in asia minor for a period of at least 10-20 yrs after being released from patmos. This would have been impossible along with his riding horseback into the mountains if he had been released at age 95 or so.
.
In Rev 9 there is mention of an invasion like a locust plague and a lions head (devouring) and like fire. This is a play on Joel 1 and 2 where temporary judgement had occurred to Israel through an actual locust plague that was depicted as a invading army. Now in Rev, the judgement and desolatiin by the Roman armies were characterized by this previous locust invasion.

Thus, the symbolism is revelant to previous jewish mosaic covt national history, not literal worldwide applicable.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

[FONT=&quot]
7 – Early Syrian versions of the Book of Revelation has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.

Where is the false prophet?

Is Nero the Beast?

Or is Nero the "Man of sin".

If John was exiled by Nero, and Nero died, how was there time to ge the Book out to the Christians if everything culminated in 2 years?

Hadnt the Christians been martyred in Judea?

Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.


[/FONT]

 

[Interplanner]

I don't calibrate things in theology by the Rev, but I can answer some of those questions. I just did earlier today.

The beast is Rome.

The man of sin is the figure leading the Jewish Revolt, known in Daniel 8 as the 'rebellion that desolates' (or the person leading it). This phrase turns into the AofD in the next chapter with all the detail about the DofJ. He didn't work alone; there are several figures who could be assigned the false prophet status.

The harlot (a Levitical term for an unfaithful wife of a priest) is Jerusalem/Judaism which uses some power from Rome (rides the beast) but then the beast turns on her, either because she didn't finish off the Christians or because she had rebels within her.

The bride is the church, and when the harlot is "stoned" there is huge rejoicing as the bride comes and is welcomed and not bothered by the harlot.

But as I said about the Rev is the "last" study, don't spend time on the thing when there are so many other materials to know that are more practical.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

I don't calibrate things in theology by the Rev, but I can answer some of those questions. I just did earlier today.

The beast is Rome.

The man of sin is the figure leading the Jewish Revolt, known in Daniel 8 as the 'rebellion that desolates' (or the person leading it). This phrase turns into the AofD in the next chapter with all the detail about the DofJ. He didn't work alone; there are several figures who could be assigned the false prophet status.

The harlot (a Levitical term for an unfaithful wife of a priest) is Jerusalem/Judaism which uses some power from Rome (rides the beast) but then the beast turns on her, either because she didn't finish off the Christians or because she had rebels within her.

The bride is the church, and when the harlot is "stoned" there is huge rejoicing as the bride comes and is welcomed and not bothered by the harlot.

But as I said about the Rev is the "last" study, don't spend time on the thing when there are so many other materials to know that are more practical.

I just want to quote this for future reference, so that you cant go back and change what youve said here.

You are so subjective with the scripture it hurts my heart.

Show me what you are saying and prove it with the bible, as everyone else does.


You know false prophets have gone out into the world, prove to me you arent one.

 

[Biblewriter]

But there are other internal reasons BW and you being interp-free (the only one in the world) don't see them.

There is not even a single item of "internal evidence" for the alleged "early date" that even exists without starting with the assumption that the Revelation was about first century events.

Without starting with that pure assumption, you have absolutely nothing. And a "proof" based on an assumption is not a proof.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

There is not even a single item of "internal evidence" for the alleged "ear;y date" that even exists without starting with the assumption that the Revelation was about first century events.

Without starting with that pure assumption, you have absolutely nothing. And a "proof" based on an assumption is not a proof.

BW, you are educated right?

How many theologians, or studied Christians do you know that support preterism from their own discernment?

 

[shturt678]

There is not even a single item of "internal evidence" for the alleged "ear;y date" that even exists without starting with the assumption that the Revelation was about first century events.

Without starting with that pure assumption, you have absolutely nothing. And a "proof" based on an assumption is not a proof.

It is thought that the Temple is still standing (Rev.11:1); it is assumed that Revelation operates with themyth regarding Nero. Instead of having died, he was suppose to have fled to the Parthians so as to at some future time to return to Rome with a mighty host. When time went on without his return, the myth was expanded; Nero would arise from the dead for this grand return to Rome. If Revelation operates with this fiction, we must lay asde as a cheap, uninspired original Autograph that is worthy of no serious study.

Sorry, got carreid away in case there are some even partial Preterist here.

Humble pie Jack

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi Inter

This whole thing is just nonsense. It is just a list of 10 assumptions that are totally wrong.

Ignoring the fact this book was written post 70 AD. Look at point number one. This book was not written to the Jews about Jerusalem. It is written to seven Christian Churches. It is about their failings and a warning to them about what would come to them. Not what would come to the Jews and Jerusalem. The first two chapters is not metaphoric from any stand point it names who the book is addressed to, explains their shortcomings, and WARNS the CHURCHES not the Jews to repent or THEY will be cast into GREAT TRIBULATION.

You are ignoring this very basic fact, TOLD TO US IN VERY PLAIN LANGUAGE, to follow your Jews Jerusalem doctrine. It is folly.

Equally folly is to ignore the fact this is written to churches in Asia Minor. Where Satan throne is where Isaiah 23 tells the harlot will move to. There were churches all over the Empire by this point....why not write to Rome or Spain or Africa. WHY ASIA MINOR. Why did God direct this warning to these churches and warn what would come to them.

I guess it is all just coincidence

 

[Biblewriter]

BW, you are educated right?

How many theologians, or studied Christians do you know that support preterism from their own discernment?

I am not quite sure what you mean. But I have read the arguments of leading Preterists, both classical and modern, and without even one exception, every piece of "internal evidence" I have seen in any of their writings is based on the assumption that their system of interpretation is correct.

As an example, they claim that the Revelation had to have been written before 70 A.D. because it speaks of the temple as still standing. But this argument totally neglects the fact that a new temple could be built in the future. It is similar for every one of their alleged "internal" proofs.

As to the evidence from history, they claim that every Christian writer after Irenaeus that gave the (as they call it) "late date" was simply basing what he said on Irenaeus. In the multi-part OP I have given conclusive proof that this is not true. There were a total of seven ancient writers who said this, and at least four of them were unquestionably basing what they said on material other than what anyone else said. For one of them, Irenaeus, was the first, and three others included details that no other writer included. Since each of these included details that he could not have gotten from any of the others, at least four of these seven witnesses were basing their information of different sources of information.

They also claim that the word of Isrenaeus was inconclusive. They do not even seem to notice that logical contradiction of claiming that Irenaeus did not really give the "late date," and then claiming that everyone else who gave it was basing what he said on Irenaeus. But I have given strong logical reasons for rejecting their claim that the word of Irenaeus was inconclusive.

(Note the difference in what I said. I said I gave strong logical reasons for one point and conclusive proof for the other.)

Then I reviewed the four (and that is all they have) ancient writers that they imagine support the "early date." Two of these are considered reliable, and I demonstrated that the statements they quote from both of these are indeed inconclusive. And I gave conclusive proof that both of the other documents they rely upon was famous for multiple gross errors. One of them was famous for errors made by the original writer. And the other exists in a manuscript copied out by scribe famous for many errors, and for apparently willful changes in what he was copying.

These eleven writers are every source known to have contained anything about this at any time before the sixth century. I made this the cut-off date because I believe it is illogical to rely on anything written more than four hundred years after the Revelation was written.

And I did not simply allege any of this. I cited exactly where and in what words each of these writers stated their cases, and I gave explicit references that allow anyone to easily check it out for themselves.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

I am not quite sure what you mean. But I have read the arguments of Preterists, both classical and modern, and without even one exception, every piece of "internal evidence" I have seen in any of their writings is based on the assumption that their system of interpretation is correct.

As an example, they claim that the Revelation had to have been written before 70 A.D. because it speaks of the temple as still standing. But this argument totally neglects the fact that a new temple could be built in the future. It is similar for every one of their alleged "internal" proofs.

As to the evidence from history, they claim that every Christian writer after Irenaeus that gave the (as they call it) "late date" was simply basing what he said on Irenaeus. In the multi-part OP I have given conclusive proof that this is not true. There were a total of seven ancient writers who said this, and at least four of them were unquestionably basing what they said on material other than what anyone else said. For one of them, Irenaeus, was the first, and three others included details that no other writer included. Since each of these included details that he could not have gotten from any of the others, at least four of these seven witnesses were basing their information of different sources of information.

They also claim that the word of Isrenaeus was inconclusive. They do not even seem to notice that logical contradiction of claiming that Irenaeus did not really give the "late date," and then claiming that everyone else who gave it was basing what he said on Irenaeus. But I have given strong logical reasons for rejection their claim that the word of Irenaeus was inconclusive.

(Note the difference in what I said. I said I gave strong logical reasons for one point and conclusive proof for the other.)

Then I reviewed the four (and that is all they have) ancient writers that they imagine support the "early date." Two of these are considered reliable, and I demonstrated that the statements they quote from both of these are indeed inconclusive. And I gave conclusive proof that both of the other documents they rely upon was famous for multiple gross errors. One of them was famous for errors made by the original writer. And the other exists in a manuscript copied out by scribe famous for many errors, and apparently willful changes in what he was copying.

These eleven writers are everyone who is known to have said anything about this at any time before the sixth century. I made this the cut-off date because I argue that it is illogical to rely on anything written more than four hundred years after the Revelation was written.

And I did not simply allege any of this. I cited exactly where and in what words each of these writers stated their cases, and I gave explicit references that allow anyone to easily check it out for themselves.

Remarkable really.. Thank you for putting in the time..


I agree.. I see why the Preterists are defaming the Jews so vehemently now...That temple starts going up and they officially owe everyone a HUGE apology..

They must not be in tune with whats going on with Israel these days.. Peace between palestine and Israel means a temple, I dont care what anyone says..

They are actively trying to build the temple, they have all the components, and the priests are trained...

I posted this pic before anyone in the world has.. I think anyways.. You can see the Temple next to the Dome..

The Temple Institute: The Holy Temple in Jerusalem: Yesterday Tomorrow Today

 

[Interplanner]

ChristP:
you are not listening. There is no "defaming" the Jews! If the resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of promises to the fathers because it provides justifcation from sins, the only thing that says about Jews is nothing.

Maybe what you've read sounds something like this: the futurist is terribly excited that the ancient worship system which was put away by the arguments of Hebrews (the letter) is back. Now can you see a bit of a problem?

Watch out what you are excited about and why. What is the burning passion of the NT? ARe you more excited at an arrival of an antichrist than you are at getting the actual historic gospel out? If we already know from Gal 1 that any other gospel is cursed, we already know all we need to know about what an "antichrist" might do.

We have 2000 year old documents saying that the end is near. Yes, I suppose there is some excitement if these things are true that the same thing the 2000 year old word says, but it still said it. "Do you believe because you have seen (the scars)? Blessed are those who have not seen and believe." Jn 21. Not to belittle proof, but because there are many reasons that make the Christian message true, apart from any sensational or spectacular sign. (In fact, if you read earlier in John and the gospels, you will find out about a problem called sign-seeking, or "seeing" vs "knowing". Signs that were "seen" did not help people "know"! Jn. 6)