An early date for Revelation Fits: Pre-AD70, not 90s. Here is why...

[asterisktom]

"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young.”

In other words Young says it's a 'stupid mistake' by Sulpicius Severus and others that has resulted in A DOMINO EFFECT of bad information concerning the dating of Revelation down through the centuries.

Thank you, KyRedneck. I remember this one now. I also have a couple or three more quotes from the 1st century that pertain. I have to find where I saved them on my computer.

But the domino effect is very prominent here. In the minds of many today a, say, third century writer assumes greater testimonial validity than he should.

 

[asterisktom]

I read all these arguments about preterism and calvinism that are never ending, and I can not help to wonder if we spent half as much time trying to evangelize and disciple people like we should be doing, instead of debating over issues that have no real winner, nor any saving value, then maybe our country would not be in the shape it is in. Just a thought. I am gonna try and rectify that in my life. Good day.

These two issues are very important. They have to do with salvation and the nature of the Kingdom of God. To get these wrong can severely effect our evangelism.

It is not a case of either/or, but both/and. Both evangelism and intelligent, charitable discussion of the truth that gives evangelism any meaning.

 

[DHK]

I would say that Revelation is John's Olivet Discourse. His Gospel noticeably lacks one.

The fact that it is absent works against Preterism.
Here is the purpose of the Gospel of John:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John writes to the world in general presenting Christ as the Son of God, and that salvation is through Him and Him alone. Its entire gospel is a message of salvation to all the world.
The other three gospels are known as the synoptics, "seeing together," having roughly the same events recorded and many other similarities.
The fact that John is so different gives credence to the much later date. He wrote, not only with a different purpose, but also to add supplemental information that the other gospels didn't have. His was not a repeat of the other gospels. He already had those. Matthew was one of the first books to be written (ca. 50 A.D.) or at least 40 years before John's gospel was written and more than 45 before Revelation was written. The other two gospels were probably written close to 65 A.D. That is still a 30 year difference. He knew what was in these books. The Olivet discourse didn't need repeating. Thus the uniqueness of the Gospel of John.

 

[asterisktom]

The fact that it is absent works against Preterism.
Here is the purpose of the Gospel of John:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The fact that it is absent from John's Gospel is that it was to be a separate Book. Yes, you quoted well the purpose for his Gospel, but that doesn't exhaust all of the God's purpose for John himself.

This does not work against Preterism. Rather it underscores the importance of Preterist (and, here, Amill) methodology of interpreting Scripture primarily in a spiritual, metaphorical manner. The Gospel writer whose work is the most metaphorical, John, gives us the most detailed Olivet Discourse (and more) in his most metaphorical book, Revelation.

 

[Bronconagurski]

These two issues are very important. They have to do with salvation and the nature of the Kingdom of God. To get these wrong can severely effect our evangelism.

It is not a case of either/or, but both/and. Both evangelism and intelligent, charitable discussion of the truth that gives evangelism any meaning.

No, my salvation depends on the finished work of Jesus Christ and my faith in the same. You have elevated your pet doctrines too highly imo. Are you trying to say that salvation is not through the Lord Jesus Christ now, by grace thru faith? When I got saved, it did not depend upon whether I believed about the tulip, nor what I believed about A.D. 70. Can't you see that? How is evangelism different in your view? Maybe I am missing something.

 

[OldRegular]

I would say that Revelation is John's Olivet Discourse. His Gospel noticeably lacks one.

I believe the Book of Revelation sets forth eternal truths concerning the conflict between good and evil and that the imagery of the book has no particular relation to any historical events. This view is generally called the "idealist" view.

I believe that the purpose of the book is two fold, to comfort Christian who are undergoing persecution and, more importantly, to show the ultimate triumph of God over His enemies. That part of the Olivet Discourse dealing with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem simply does not show the ultimate triumph of God over His enemies; neither does the history of 70 AD and the persecution of the Saints since then.

The early years of the Church were ones of continual, sometimes intense, persecution. However, history shows the judgment of God on the persecutors of the early Church in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the demise of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD. If Revelation was written for the comfort of those undergoing intense persecution, the evidence of history is that God’s judgment is sure. However, the final destruction of Satan, the adversary, has not yet occurred but must come to pass [Revelation 1:1], and by God’s timetable, not ours, must shortly come to pass. The mandatory nature of this phrase cannot be explained away and there is no need to. The attitude of the expectancy of the things revealed is reinforced in Revelation 1:3, for the time [is] at hand.

 

[asterisktom]

Are you trying to say that salvation is not through the Lord Jesus Christ now, by grace thru faith? When I got saved, it did not depend upon whether I believed about the tulip, nor what I believed about A.D. 70. Can't you see that? How is evangelism different in your view? Maybe I am missing something.

Wow. Maybe you are missing something something. I said no such thing. But I don't have time to address this, going off to work. Other than to say you are way off about what I wrote.

 

[thomas15]

.......But this does not detract from my point, namely, that there were many witnesses to this earlier dating of Revelation, not some imagined agreement on that later date that eventually became the majority consensus.

Majority consensus? Really?

 

[Bronconagurski]

Wow. Maybe you are missing something something. I said no such thing. But I don't have time to address this, going off to work. Other than to say you are way off about what I wrote.

I guess I did, but you did say this:

"These two issues are very important. They have to do with salvation and the nature of the Kingdom of God. To get these wrong can severely effect our evangelism."

How does a.d. 70 and what you believe affect salvation and your evangelsim?

Like I said, when I got saved, the people that witnessed and preached to me believed nothing like you do and that did not stop me from getting saved. I am not getting why you think it matters so much.

 

[asterisktom]

Majority consensus? Really?

Yes, the majority consensus now (unfortunately) is that Revelation was written in the 90s. Not sure what you thought I said.