The late date theory for the writing of Revelation is a house of cards that won't bear scrutiny:
Unless, or course, you actually know something about Church History.
John had been banished by Domitius Nero,
Except Nero was never known as "Domitius Nero." His given name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. His name was changed to Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus when he was 13 and adopted by his great uncle Claudius. He was most often called Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus. The only reason his original name included "Domitius" was that was the name of his biological father who died (Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, died in about 40 AD).
As "Domitius" was part of his father's family name, after Claudius adopted him and made him son and heir to the Roman throne, he was never again called by his biological father's name.
As for Irenaeus, read my earlier post. It was Irenaeus who wrote (Adversus Haereses) that Polycarp was a disciple of John, and attested to the fact that John ordained Polycarp around 100 AD.
There is no way this was happening in 68-70 AD as that was when Polycarp was born.
It is only when you try to force the Preterist Hermeneutic onto the text of the bible that you arrive at such absurdities as it taking place before 70 AD.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his fifties at this time.
Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).
Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,
In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you would list the dispensational theologians who influenced the politicians. Who were they? (I've never heard of any.)
