Which book is the Last written?

[revmwc]

Preterist say Revelation was written prior to 70 A.D. That being said and most feel it was the last written and the completion of the canon, then where would that put the book of Jude? Jude is said to be written in 70 to 90 A.D. which would make it the last book of the canon. So if it were the last book why no mention of the Lord's return and how could it be written since ALL believers of the church were to be with Christ in heaven following His return?

Can we conclude from this that Christ is yet to come? Can we also conclude that church history is correct and the book of revelation was written 95 to 96 A.D. while John was on the Isle of Patmos?

I would say we have very strong evidence that we can conclude those things. What say you guys?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I suspect it was the Gospel of John, sometime in the mid 90s.

 

[Paul Rittman]

There is also another option--that ALL the NT books were written before 70 AD. And so one does not have to place Jude after Revelation, or after 70 AD.

See John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament.

(If I have understood the background to your question here): one need not connect an early date for Revelation (and the other 26 NT books) with a full preterism that insists that EVERYTHING in Rev has already happened. THere are plenty of orthodox preterists (one might call them partial preterists) that are post-millenial that would still see room for a Second Coming. For a very good articulation of this question, I'd look up Greg Bahnsen's works on eschatology (I heard him in a 3-or 4-part cassette series a loooong time ago), to see how you can combine preterism without denying a bodily return of Jesus, yet to come.

 

[kyredneck]

There is also another option--that ALL the NT books were written before 70 AD. And so one does not have to place Jude after Revelation, or after 70 AD.

See John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament.

(If I have understood the background to your question here): one need not connect an early date for Revelation (and the other 26 NT books) with a full preterism that insists that EVERYTHING in Rev has already happened. THere are plenty of orthodox preterists (one might call them partial preterists) that are post-millenial that would still see room for a Second Coming. For a very good articulation of this question, I'd look up Greg Bahnsen's works on eschatology (I heard him in a 3-or 4-part cassette series a loooong time ago), to see how you can combine preterism without denying a bodily return of Jesus, yet to come.

Hello Paul, welcome to the BB. I believe there are several PPs (I being one of them) on board that would conform with what you've just stated.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown favor the earlier date for the writing of Revelation and have this to say about it (they provide possible allusions to the book in other books of the NT):

From JFB commentary: "...The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement of Alexandria's'S story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Cæsar. Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64). But the possible allusions to it in Heb 10:37; compare Re 1:4, 8; 4:8; 22:12; Heb 11:10; compare Re 21:14; Heb 12:22, 23; compare Re 14:1; Heb 8:1, 2; compare Re 11:19; 15:5; 21:3; Heb 4:12; compare Re 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:13, 15; Heb 4:9; compare Re 20:1-15; also 1Pe 1:7, 13; 4:13, with Re 1:1; 1Pe 2:9 with Re 5:10; 2Ti 4:8, with Re 2:26, 27; 3:21; 11:18; Eph 6:12, with Re 12:7-12; Php 4:3, with Re 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; Col 1:18, with Re 1:5; 1Co 15:52, with Re 10:7; 11:15-18, make a date before the destruction of Laodicea possible. Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero.”

 

[Paul Rittman]

The big point that Robinson made, apart from individual characteristics of each NT book, was the complete and utter lack of a specific reference to the fall of the Temple in 70 AD, which, when considering the central role the Temple had in Judaism and Palestine, would be rather strange, especially when some of the books were written to (believing) Jews. Granted its an argument from silence, but under these circumstances, a pretty strong one.

 

[Paul Rittman]

In fact, if someone is interested in a free ebook (PDF as well as HTML) on an early date for Revelation, you can see it here:

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

It is by Kenneth Gentry, entitled Before Jerusalem Fell.

 

[kyredneck]

The big point that Robinson made, apart from individual characteristics of each NT book, was the complete and utter lack of a specific reference to the fall of the Temple in 70 AD, which, when considering the central role the Temple had in Judaism and Palestine, would be rather strange, especially when some of the books were written to (believing) Jews. Granted its an argument from silence, but under these circumstances, a pretty strong one.

I agree, it IS a strong argument from silence. I found Robinson's book here:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html

In fact, if someone is interested in a free ebook (PDF as well as HTML) on an early date for Revelation, you can see it here:

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

It is by Kenneth Gentry, entitled Before Jerusalem Fell.

Thanks for that link to Gentry's book, I'd heard of it, never read it, now have it on file to reference when needed.

 

[preacher4truth]

Scholars believe the Revelation to be written between 81-96 a.d. not prior to 70 a.d.

 

[JesusFan]

Scholars believe the Revelation to be written between 81-96 a.d. not prior to 70 a.d.

About ONLY way to get earlier date is to use sources that are not seen as being as reliable as commonly referred to by "experts", and those that fit into certail theological positions!

 

[Logos1]

Most scientists once believed the earth was at the center of the universe

Some scholars do but not all of them. It proves nothing that most at the current moment in time believe anyone thing. Search for the best answer not the most scholars.

Most scientists once believed the earth was at the center of the universe.

Needless to say you look foolish to hold on to that belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I think the best evidence tells us all the books were written prior to 70 AD.

 

[preacher4truth]

Some scholars do but not all of them. It proves nothing that most at the current moment in time believe anyone thing. Search for the best answer not the most scholars.

Most scientists once believed the earth was at the center of the universe.

Needless to say you look foolish to hold on to that belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I think the best evidence tells us all the books were written prior to 70 AD.

I look foolish? Then you equate those scholars to those who believed the earth to be the center of the universe, in other words, another slam and personal attack.

I hold to the 95-96 a.d. writing in spite of your personal attack.

Bless you my friend.

 

[Logos1]

Victomology in practice

I look foolish? Then you equate those scholars to those who believed the earth to be the center of the universe, in other words, another slam and personal attack.

I hold to the 95-96 a.d. writing in spite of your personal attack.

Bless you my friend.

There is no personal attack here. You choose to make yourself a victim. Sad if you ask me. If you spend your time reading the scripture with as fervor as you apparently seek victim status it might change your view of some things.

Peace brother.

 

[preacher4truth]

There is no personal attack here. You choose to make yourself a victim. Sad if you ask me. If you spend your time reading the scripture with as fervor as you apparently seek victim status it might change your view of some things.

Peace brother.

There is no personal attack here? :laugh: You call a brother foolish, yet that isn't a personal attack. Yeah OK.

I'm no victim, just a Christian accepting your little tirade and onslaught upon my character and belief. What you call me doesn't fit me personally and is more of a commentary on your walk and person. That's what is sad here.

Even more personal attacks from you. You're caustic and inflamed, yet present yourself as in the know and spiritual. Congrats! :thumbsup:

 

[Logos1]

Really clinging tight to the victim card aren't we

There is no personal attack here? :laugh: You call a brother foolish, yet that isn't a personal attack. Yeah OK.

I'm no victim, just a Christian accepting your little tirade and onslaught upon my character and belief. What you call me doesn't fit me personally and is more of a commentary on your walk and person. That's what is sad here.

Even more personal attacks from you. You're caustic and inflamed, yet present yourself as in the know and spiritual. Congrats! :thumbsup:

Foolish was showing how it looks to claim the earth is the center of the universe--now if you want to claim the earth is the center of the universe then yes I'll gladly apply that to you as well.

Otherwise you are just proving my point by making yourself out to be a victim and getting yourself all worked up into a heart seizure over nothing.

If you get so easily frustrated over BB postings maybe you should consider other uses of your time that don't give you high blood pressure and heart failure.

But then some people enjoy victim hood so maybe at some level you are enjoying it. Whatever.

Peace brother.

 

[preacher4truth]

Foolish was showing how it looks to claim the earth is the center of the universe--now if you want to claim the earth is the center of the universe then yes I'll gladly apply that to you as well.

Otherwise you are just proving my point by making yourself out to be a victim and getting yourself all worked up into a heart seizure over nothing.

If you get so easily frustrated over BB postings maybe you should consider other uses of your time that don't give you high blood pressure and heart failure.

But then some people enjoy victim hood so maybe at some level you are enjoying it. Whatever.

Peace brother.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

Friend, it looks as if your religion has embittered you. :smilewinkgrin:

You use the center of earth issue as an indirect attack to call those who don't espouse c. 70 A.D. as also being themselves fools.

I mean, why else would you say it? Be big enough to own up to your own implications.

 

[DHK]

Hello Paul, welcome to the BB. I believe there are several PPs (I being one of them) on board that would conform with what you've just stated.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown favor the earlier date for the writing of Revelation and have this to say about it (they provide possible allusions to the book in other books of the NT):

From JFB commentary: "...The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement of Alexandria's'S story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Cæsar. Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64). But the possible allusions to it in Heb 10:37; compare Re 1:4, 8; 4:8; 22:12; Heb 11:10; compare Re 21:14; Heb 12:22, 23; compare Re 14:1; Heb 8:1, 2; compare Re 11:19; 15:5; 21:3; Heb 4:12; compare Re 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:13, 15; Heb 4:9; compare Re 20:1-15; also 1Pe 1:7, 13; 4:13, with Re 1:1; 1Pe 2:9 with Re 5:10; 2Ti 4:8, with Re 2:26, 27; 3:21; 11:18; Eph 6:12, with Re 12:7-12; Php 4:3, with Re 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; Col 1:18, with Re 1:5; 1Co 15:52, with Re 10:7; 11:15-18, make a date before the destruction of Laodicea possible. Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero.”

This is not a very reliable quote. It seems to be an opinion based on sketchy evidence. He admits the evidence points the other way. He says at the very beginning of this very article (the part you didn't quote) :

PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING.--The best authorities among the Fathers state that John was exiled under Domitian (IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 5; 30]; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA; EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.20]). VICTORINUS says that he had to labor in the mines of Patmos. At Domitian's death, A.D. 95, he returned to Ephesus under the Emperor Nerva. Probably it was immediately after his return that he wrote, under divine inspiration, the account of the visions vouchsafed to him in Patmos (Re 1:2,9). However, Re 10:4 seems to imply that he wrote the visions immediately after seeing them. Patmos is one of the Sporades Its circumference is about thirty miles. "It was fitting that when forbidden to go beyond certain bounds of the earth's lands, he was permitted to penetrate the secrets of heaven" [BEDE, Explanation of the Apocalypse on chap. 1].

 

[Logos1]

Look at me i'm a victim, i'm a victim!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

Friend, it looks as if your religion has embittered you. :smilewinkgrin:

You use the center of earth issue as an indirect attack to call those who don't espouse c. 70 A.D. as also being themselves fools.

I mean, why else would you say it? Be big enough to own up to your own implications.

LOL, I think any honest reading of the original post is plain enough for 99.94% of people to correctly interpret it.

I'll give you some new fodder to work with though. You are a post twister. Maybe its just a DNA thing that futurists twist scripture all the time to make it conform to their view and now you are taking it to the next level and twisting BB posts to suit your desired view of victim hood.

Enjoy it brother--work the victim thing for all it's worth.

I salute your victim status.

 

[preacher4truth]

LOL, I think any honest reading of the original post is plain enough for 99.94% of people to correctly interpret it.

I'll give you some new fodder to work with though. You are a post twister. Maybe its just a DNA thing that futurists twist scripture all the time to make it conform to their view and now you are taking it to the next level and twisting BB posts to suit your desired view of victim hood.

Enjoy it brother--work the victim thing for all it's worth.

I salute your victim status.

I knew you weren't big enough to own up to your own implications. Let's see, you compare my beliefs with center of universe theory, then label it all "foolish" yet later you tuck tail and can't own up about your own implications and call it twisting? Congrats! :thumbsup:

Any honest person can see what you've implied.

Yep, I'm what you call a futurist, and what you've implied as being a fool for being so.

And I remain no victim, that's a figment of your imagination. Just a believer that doesn't share your beliefs, so you need to go on the attack, as is the trait of most preterists towards others who don't believe their views. A sad religion really.

 

[revmwc]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

Friend, it looks as if your religion has embittered you. :smilewinkgrin:

You use the center of earth issue as an indirect attack to call those who don't espouse c. 70 A.D. as also being themselves fools.

I mean, why else would you say it? Be big enough to own up to your own implications.

Don't let it get to you consider the source and continue to post your view. I let things get to me once in a post but I try to stay above the fray and just keep posting the truth as I see it. The issue is more important than what they call you or seem to call you. If someone can get to you and they know it then that pulls you off of the issue. Don't let it bother you.

 

[DHK]

The early dating of the Book of Revelation falls into the category of those liberals who believe deutero-Isaiah theory, the JEDP theory, the late date theory of Daniel, etc. In other words they are liberals trying to undermine the inspiration of the Bible, its authority, deny its prophecies, deny the supernatural acts of the Bible, etc.

I have put much study into this book, and have taught through the entire book, verse by verse. I have never encountered one commentary, Bible Dictionary, or Bible Encyclopedia that gives the Book of Revelation an early date of 70 A.D.

John himself states:
I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9)

He was in Patmos, exiled there for the sake of the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ. The only person who had the authority to do that was Domitian for he was the emperor at that time (96-98 A.D.). This excludes Nero, and all who were before Domitian. The early fathers agree to this. All evidence points to this. This one fact in itself defeats the Preterist view. And it is a fact. It is also factual that all of John's writings: his Gospel, all three of his epistles were written in the 90's. You have yet to deal with them.

Here is the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) on the Introduction to the Gospel of John:

Thus, the appearance of the Johannine writings at the end of the 1st century may safely be accepted as a sound historical conclusion. Slowly the critics who assigned their appearance to the middle of the 2nd century, or later, have retraced their steps, and assign the emergence of the Johannine writings to the time mentioned. (end of 1st century).