Revelation Was Written Before A.D 70.

Starting with Audience Relevance (my A #1), Con stated: "This is not an argument for or against either of our positions here." But it is. Con, later in his rebuttal, contradicts his own statement: "Revelation was audience specific to Gentile believers in Asia Minor in AD 95." Again, Con is just asserting. No evidence was supplied from Scripture to show the focus of John's address or when. This is critical concerning the theme of judgment. I mentioned Revelation 1:7 (to those who had pierced Him), along with the 'Great City' [figuratively called Sodom and Egypt - Rev. 11:8 with Deuteronomy 32:20-33, esp. 32 and Ezekiel 23], where the Lord was slain. The Great City/Babylon the Great theme, in Revelation 17-19, Con never addressed. It can be no other than OT Jerusalem who were responsible for the Lord's death and the blood of the saints and prophets (Matthew 23:37-39). [1]A friend commenting to me concerning audience relevance said: "...the fact that the Apocalypse is audience-specific at all is harmful to his position. Secondly, Christians were persecuted by the Jews and Romans without much regard to their background; hence, the rejection and destruction of Judaism was of importance to Gentile Christians. Thirdly, a portion of the Roman persecution of Christians was instigated by the Jews. In the last place, Gentile Christians were heavily influenced by Jewish Christians, which accounts for the many warnings against "Judaizing" even in epistles to Gentile churches."Concerning Revelation 11:1-3 (A#3), Con states: "John was measuring a temple in a vision. “This does not mean the temple was actually standing at the time of writing." In context it is implied. The temple John was instructed to measure was in the city in which the Lord was slain (vs 8). That city was not destroyed until A.D. 70. Con wants to remove Revelation 11:1-3 from its context. How can the context apply to A.D. 96 or some other futurist date?I stated that NT prophecy is largely concerned with judgment on the OT people, temple and city. Con failed to see the significance of this. John A.T. Robertson said:"One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — is never once mentioned as a past fact. . . . [T]he silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark". [2] Concerning Revelation being the time of God's judgment on apostate OT Israel (my A#2) Con states my argument is rendered impotent by Matthew 24:29-38. Con fails to see the figurative use of language used, in which Peter in Acts 2:16-21 said: "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel" regarding 'the last days' then lists events that Con alludes to, and this at Pentecost. That generation was in the 'last days' (See also Hebrews 1:2). Con's argument fails according to Scripture. In Revelation's early date (A#4) I referenced language as time and audience specific, e.g., 'things which must shortly come to pass.' Con stated: "This was to give a sense of urgency, not to establish a time line. Revelation is the vision of end times and the second coming of Christ given to John by Jesus. According to scripture, Jesus could not know if the second coming would shortly come to pass." A sense of urgency has no meaning if 'shortly' and 'time is near' can mean whatever Con says they mean and apply to a century 20 plus removed from the time of writing and an audience completely irrelevant to the seven churches John was writing to. Con also states: "There are many interpretations of the ‘seven kings'" but the passage specifically lists the sixth king as the one that IS. Again Con failed to address this, simply diverted it.Con's A#1 lists Irenaeus as a chief source for a late date. It virtually ignores Scripture. Upon this one disputable text by Irenaeus Con's whole argument hinges, which is accepted by tradition, but Robert Young states: Robert Young (1885) "It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as state in the title of the Syriac version of the book ; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance) [3] In addition, David Crew: David Crews (1994) "The view accepted without much question by many Christians is that the Revelation was written in or around A.D.96, during the reign of the Caesar Domitian. This date of authorship would, of course, prevent the book from referring to the events of the Jewish War.. Simply put, the case for a late Domitian date hangs by a very slender thread. It is determined from a single statement by the Bishop of Lyons, named Irenaeus.. This statement is not an eyewitness testimony from Irenaeus, but is his recollection of what was said by an ever earlier man, Polycarp, who is supposed to have known John personally." [Prophecy Fulfilled - God's Perfect Church (Austin, TX: New Light Publishing, 1994), pp. 256,257] [4] Con's A#5, concerning the current age, were answered in my opening statement. The NT primarily addresses two ages, the one that Jesus came to - the OT age - and the one to come that came in A.D. 70. Con failed to address this or my point on Matthew 5:17-18 about heaven and earth passing away, heaven and earth being the system the OT revolving around, the temple and city of God.Concerning 'this generation' Con implies - No, not 'this generation' but 'that generation.' He ignored Hebrews Chapters 3-4 in which the author identified the generation, also Jesus' many references to 'this generation' that specificially applied to 1st century Israel, yet not in Matthew 24:34 according to Con. Con redefines the word 'this' to make it meaningless. It can apply to any generation. "This means that." Con rejects my explanation of the churches being addressed at an early date, especially Laodicea, and ignored my biblical quotation as well as two citations from early sources. Tacitus stated after the earthquake how these people had need of no outside help. Con fails to see how a church can deteriorate quickly, within a few years, even after I stated the NT cites such examples. Within the ministry of Paul Galatians 1:6-8 notes it happening. Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2:11-14. In 1 Corinthians these early Christians were turning to idol worship, sexual immorality, etc. Paul had words for the church in Ephesus, Thessalonica, and instructed Timothy to watch out for those who teach false doctrine. Paul pointed out two in specific, Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20). Con has no justification from Scripture for making his claims. Con questions my A#5, Daniel's 70 weeks, as to its point. The point is that Daniel's people, OT Israel, were given 70 weeks of years (490 years), starting upon the issuing of the decree (457 B.C.), to finish/complete transgression and put an end to sin. In the middle of the seventieth week the Messiah would be put to death. That would be around A.D. 30. Jesus gave 'this generation' 40 years to repent, when all would be accomplished. The last 3 1/2 years from A.D. 67-70 finished the last (seventieth) week with the destruction of the temple/Old Covenant.I fail to see Con adequately address many of my issues in his attempt to undermine the early date of Revelation. [1] http://static.justchristians.com... [2] http://www.preteristarchive.com... (Redating the NT., p. 13)[3] http://www.preteristarchive.com...[4] IbidThank you for the debate Con!