Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?
People like to think that there is some great earthly occurrence yet to take place. It tickles their ears and entertains their minds. St. Augustine referred to these people (futurists) as carnal. Thick of all the books and movies that have been made about the "coming tribulation". Fiction sells.Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?
The reference concerning John (and his vision) made by Irenaeus.So you think it is motivated by a rejection of preterism? Because one could be a futurist and still believe that Revelation was written early. I'm more wondered what it is about the historical evidence that makes people so sure of the late date.
Preterists have made the observation that the entire book of revelation is actually a figurative account of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, however, I am not a preterist.Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?
Okay, so you go by the internal evidence. The Galatians judaized though didn't they? And these false teachers, even on the Neronian dating, would have come in after Paul. How do you know exactly when these false teachers came into the church? Isn't it more likely they came in soon after Paul left, when their was a void of leadership, when false teachers were abounding (see 1 and 2 Timothy)? Wouldn't the churches have had copies of Paul's letters to read every week by the 80s?
I don't really want to make this about preterism though. I am not a preterist and the question of the dating of Revelation, while it has implications for preterism, is separate from it.
Paul said after his departure--not four decades later after John's exile--so I think that supports the Neronian dating.
I'm not sure what you mean about areas of Asia Minor that Paul didn't go to. Paul's region included Ephesus, Laodicea and Smyrna, at least, and the rest--we don't know.
Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?
Why are people so persuaded of this?
the seven churches argue for the late dateI'm more wondered what it is about the historical evidence that makes people so sure of the late date.
a careful read of eusebius will show that he never associates any of the seven churches with the apocalypse - neither does victorinusClement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitian’s reign.
Here are the reasons:
"A letter written around A.D. 180 by Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple and successor of John), states that pronouncing the name of the antichrist would be incurring a risk and if it were necessary at the time it was written, it would have been revealed by Christ. They did not know the name of the antichrist. If it was Nero in their past, then they would have stated it. Nero was an antichrist and all the people in history who have persecuted Christians or who have tried to distort who He is are antichrists as well. Jesus said there would be many. But Nero was only small change in comparison to the antichrist during the Great Tribulation period. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitian’s reign.
Smyrna was not mentioned anywhere else in scripture suggesting that it was a newer church which was started later in the first century. Polycarp was said to be the Bishop of Smyrna and born around A.D. 70. If he was a disciple and successor of John, then this church began decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. And finally, Polycarp said that no church in Smyrna existed in A.D. 67.
If John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70, it would overlap Paul’s letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus at the time. The problems Jesus points out in Revelation concerning Ephesus and Laodicea are not evident in Paul’s letters. John probably did not move to Ephesus until after Paul and Peter were martyred. Nero killed Christians and their prophets including Paul and Peter. That was his style. He would have also killed John if he was around. But John became banished to Patmos. That was Domitian’s style of punishment.
Some want to adhere to this Preterist view only partially because they understand the many errors in it so they weed out the obvious ones, accept the rest and call themselves Partial-Preterists. They identify Nero as the antichrist and his predecessors as the Beast. The Beast has seven heads and ten horns. The world system in the end times is comprised of nations ruled by leaders independently, not one nation’s successive list of Caesars. The Roman Empire was not divided into fragments in A.D.70. During the Great Tribulation period, the Antichrist subdues three horns and then takes over the rest and rules over the entire world for 42 months and then is defeated by Christ and thrown into the pit for 1000 years. Did that already happen? NO! It’s clear misguided interpretation. This is a crucial point: There view depends on the book of Revelation being written before A.D. 70." (From "Hell ... If I Know" R.D.Bruno)
why is it important to you?ignorance then--there are so many errors here I wouldn't know where to start.