Which book is the Last written?

I agree.

Preterists have to assign this book to an earlier date to back up their views which are based upon a historian Josephus who took a Roman last name, Flavius.

This religion reminds me of Hymenaeus, as they also say (many of them) the resurrection is past already.

Most of the NT would not apply to us then.

- Peace

 

Your study and mine come to the same conclusion here.

 

But those schooled by Post modernists will think if others believe it, then it is credible. Thus they have no understanding of critical thinking.

Anytime we have well studied folks on both sides of an issue, it is clear we do not really know the truth.

Why is it important to believe all the books were written before the destruction of the temple? Is that useful to support some ill-founded doctrine?

 

OK, that's your opinion. Actually the sketchy evidence is for the late date. In fact, when it's scrutinized, it's a house of cards.

No, JFB commentary does not say that, it says “The best authorities among the Fathers” and then refers to IRENÆUS:

Jim Gunter concerning Irenaeus:
“Those who support the “late” date of its writing (92-96 A.D.) seem to base their belief on the grounds of a solitary quote of Irenaeus who lived from 125-202 A.D. The late Foy E. Wallace Jr. (who supported the “early” date of its writing), in his book titled, “The Book of Revelation,” quotes that statement by Irenaeus. It reads as follows:

“If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that (it or he-emphasis by FEW) was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3, quoted in, The Book of Revelation, Foy E. Wallace Jr., p. 25).

As we can see here, the key phrase in Irenaeus’ statement is, “that was seen!” The question then becomes: Was it 'he' (John?) or 'it' (Revelation?) that was seen? In the English,it could be either one!

Then there other scholars who comment on both Irenaeus and also his statement:

D. Ragan Ewing writes:
“The difficulty arises in Irenaeus’ statement, as translated, “… that was seen …” The Greek text simply reads eJwravqh. The subject of the statement is simply subsumed in the verb, and there is therefore no grammatical indicator as to the referent; it could be the Apocalypse, or it could be John himself. In other words, the English could just as easily be, “… he was seen …”

Ewing further writes:
“Nevertheless, there remains another problem with the Irenaean witness. To what extent are we to take as trustworthy Irenaeus’ historical claims… In one place he portrays James the Apostle as the same person as the brother of the Lord, and in another, he astonishingly informs us that Jesus lived to be between forty and fifty years old! Lapses like these have understandably led to assessments such as Guthrie’s caution that Irenaeus’ historical method is “uncritical,” as well as Moffatt’s comment, “Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological.” Such being the case, should we really place the great confidence in this testimony that many scholars have?”

Kenneth Gentry quoting Irenaeus:
Irenaeus said of the age of Jesus, “but the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness…” (Quoted in Before Jerusalem Fell, Kenneth L. Gentry, p. 63) Can we trust the testimony of a man that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Yet, it is largely his testimony alone, for the latter date!

Burton Coffman writes:
“His (Eusebius’) quotation (of Irenaeus’ statement) does not even mention “the writing” of Revelation, but refers solely to the time when certain unnamed persons are alleged to have seen either the apostle or the prophecy, nobody knows which. This proves nothing. Besides that: If he meant the Apocalypse was seen, and if it had been originally composed in quotation, could have reference to the Greek translation, if indeed it referred to the Revelation at all. There goes the whole case for the latter date,” (Commentary on Revelation, Burton Coffman, p 4).

William Bell writes:
“Concerning the above statement (Irenaeus’ statement), scholars have long recognized that it is not possible to determine whether Irenaeus meant to say John was seen by Irenaeus’ tutor, Polycarp, or that “the Apocalypse” was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Such ambiguity destroys this argument as evidence. Even Eusebius, who recorded this statement, doubted that John, the apostle, even wrote the book of Revelation. The point here is this, if the statement was not strong enough to convince Eusebius that John even wrote Revelation, why do so many think today that it is strong enough to convince one that the apostle saw it (the Apocalypse) during Domitian’s reign (A.D. 95)? It is weak to say the least.”

Finally, is support of the “early” day of the Apocalypse, are the words of Robert Young, author of “Young’s Analytical concordance of the New Testament,” and “Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.” In his remarks, you will see that he contends that a mistake has been made on the part of other early writers who quote Irenaeus’ statement. As you will see, it is his belief that the other early writers actually (mis)quote Irenaeus as to the name of the Roman Emperor who was ruling at the time of his statement, and succeeding writers simply followed their lead!“

JFB commentary then refers to [the extremely shaky evidence of (which actually is no evidence at all)] CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA who simply said:
“....the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.”

That's all he says. The question is WHICH TYRANT is he referring to? Nero or Domitian?

JFB commentary then refers to EUSEBIUS as a 'best authority' and then admits in the same intro that “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.” Again, no evidence at all. Also, the problem with this source is that his 'pro late date statement' quotes Irenaeus.

JFB commentary then refers to VICTORINUS, who again relies on Irenaeus, which again is no evidence at all.

 

There is compelling internal evidence that not only is much the book of Revelation concerned with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, but that it was written prior to this event:

And I saw another sign in heaven....and them that come off victorious from the beast... they sing the song of Moses the servant of God....Rev 15.1-3

The song of Moses is being sang in heaven in the 15th chapter of Revelation. This is very significant. The song of Moses had only one purpose and time, and that was to 'testify before Israel as a witness against them' when they had utterly corrupted themselves and evil had befallen them in the 'latter days':

16 And Jehovah said unto Moses.....this people will rise up, and play the harlot ...and break my covenant which I have made with them.
17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day.....and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?
18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought.....
19 Now therefore write ye this song for you...... that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
21....when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness.....
29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.
30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished. Dt 31

It is also significant that the Song of Moses is quoted by Christ and the writers of the NT in reference to 'that generation' of Jews.

 

Yes we know, it's all over with your theology.

Maybe you've been what they call "hood-winked." I have to continue to be honest; this above theology is a hopeless and miserable teaching. The resurrection is past, the judgment is gone and done, the return is over, sheep and goats judgment; done, and people today await nothing but ambiguity.

I await "Even so, come Lord Jesus" as did John c. 95 A. D.

But;

Why no answer to my questions about evangelism and missions from you? I don't get why it is so touchy? Anyone else I would have asked would have answered gladly instead of giving a link to a website. Do you give those who ask a reason of hope a website link too? Or do they even ask this seeing all hope is in the past? Or, is there hope in preterist theology since all has already been fulfilled and most of the NT will no longer apply to todays believers? I mean, there is no reason to purify oneself in the hopes of the Glorious Appearing, and there is no need to even hope in His Appearing at all ever, there is no need to be prepared and watch and wait. It's all over according to you. Heavens sakes, according to preterism, there will be no resurrection at all, it's done. Hymenaeus is leaping with joy wherever he is. So too Philetus, and that coppersmith Alexander. They preached the same message, they had an inside scoop. Everyone else? Dumb and not "in the know." Bottom line all of this is a denial of resurrection for ALL who have believed. It almost reeks of Watchtower and a limited 144,000 "making it."

Is it this theology of yours that prevents you from answering about evangelism and missions involvement? I mean, why preach the Gospel at all if all is "come to pass?"

This preterism is basically the church trying to suffice the higher-criticism/liberal-theology attack upon Gods Word. It's a fallacy and a hopeless teaching. I reject it.

- Peace

 

Then why does virtually no advocate an early date: not encyclopedia, dictionaries, commentaries, no one--zilch. In order to support your theory you have to google early date theory and dig up such obscure information for very little of it is out there. Like I said previously, I have never heard of such a theory until I came here, and I have been studying it a long time. It just isn't credible.
Here is a quote from John Gill (who is more interested with its contents than with its date)

 

And this applies to me how?

 

I asked you the next step, since all is past, your answer? "all will be delivered up to the Father" (paraphrasing you since I won't go get the actual quote, and I'm assuming 1 Cor. 15:24) was your answer.

You hide under a veil. Answer my questions proposed to you w/o a website link. You believe it with all your heart, then put it out there without your veil and ambiguity.

I mean, after all, I have.

 

Most that I've seen, as JFB commentary does, give both sides of the debate, with the inclusion, as Gill does, the most common belief is the late date (which actually amounts to zilch). Maybe the ones you have give only one side, I don't know.

So? What? Thank God for this wonderful tool of the Internet search engine that we have at our fingertips. What a gift! How liberating! Reminds me of the city of Alexandria; one great big huge centralized library for me to glean from while in the comfort of my own home. Thank you Lord!

Obscure information? No DHK, it's not obscure, it's been there all along, you're just trying to paint the picture that way, an insidious tactic on your part to discredit data that you're unable to refute.

Well you've heard it now, and the fact is 'your late date theory' is just as much or more of a theory as the 'early date theory'. In fact, it's a house of cards.

Go back to your library and dig in your encyclopedias, dictionaries, commentaries, and provide some concrete evidence for the late date that doesn't have it's roots in what has already been discredited. Any data connected with Irenaeus is negated.

So says DHK, which amounts to zilch. Go back to your library and dig in your encyclopedias, dictionaries, commentaries, and provide some concrete evidence for the late date that doesn't have it's roots in what has already been discredited.

“As for the time of its writing this is not agreed upon on all hands; the place where, seems to be the isle of Patmos, which yet some question. Some think it was written in the times of Claudius Caesar (h), before the destruction of Jerusalem. In the title of the Syriac version, this revelation is said to be made to John in the isle of Patmos, into which he was cast by Nero Caesar. But the more commonly received opinion is, that he had this vision there, at the latter end of Domitian's reign (i) by whom he was there banished, about the year 95, or 96.”

Wow, you must be getting desperate if you of all people are having to resort to Gill. I've never read anything good you've had to say of him.

Where does Gill get his data from? From whence is it's roots?

Here's some more 'obscure information' for you that I left off in my previous post:

"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 a 'stupid mistake' by Sulpicius Severus and others has resulted in A DOMINO EFFECT of bad information down through the centuries.

 

And this pertains to me how?

 

Bro, then you really haven't put that much study into it.


Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (1871)
"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 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." (introduction to Revelation)

Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Encyclopedia 3:2036.)

"Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428.)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring of all ancient history." But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (p. 397-398)

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/ApocalypseCommentaries/Dating/Early/index.html

 

From victim hood to pity party

If you can pull yourself out of your woe-is-me-poor-little-victim-pity-party you should try being a Preterist for a little while. It helps you develop tougher skin and not sweat it when you get some real (as opposed to imaginary) personal attack.

It also helps you to read the bible in a way that it all comes together and in a coherent way and makes sense like it never has before.

You could benefit from both. You leave behind the never ending waiting for a future return that is not there to be found in the bible and start celebrating Christ’s victory over sin death and rejoice in the fact that you can go to heaven when you die.

And, you can even not be all stroked-out and rolling in pity over imaginary personal attacks that never happened.

Gee, a winner on both accounts. You need Preterism more than I do.

 

Perhaps more than you think.

The most important part of JFB's quote is this part:

Jamieson, Faucett and Brown admit that the best authorities among the Fathers state that John was exiled under Domitian--in the 90's.
--Why would you try to make him say the opposite?

"Modern critics"? And what do the more conservative and traditional ones say?

Odd, ISBE says the exact opposite.

Which Tertullian? Tertullian the former, or Tertullian the Montanist?

And this has to do with what???
The event is still future.

 

You wish to make it appear to be the most important part. I responded to this here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1706986#post1706986

And here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1707038#post1707038

 

He said what he said, and you are trying to make him say something else.
He said:

The best authorities among the Fathers state that John was exiled under Domitian

And then he quotes some things that one person, Ireneus, said. So what?
But he admits that the best authorities state that John was exiled under Domitian. That much is clear.