Revelation Was Written Before A.D 70.

The books in dispute from the chart would be John, his three epistles and Revelation. More in Round 3. Please keep in mind the significance of the New Covenant. It plays a vital part in how you interpret Scripture. The old existed along with the new until the temple was destroyed in A. D. 70. John is the only gospel that does not contain the Olivet Discourse, yet John was with Jesus and some believe Revelation is his expanded prophecy on the discourse concerning Jerusalem. Refuting Con's arguments: Con: "A pre A. D. 70 date for Revelation is crucial to my opponents Preterist views. If Revelation was written after 70AD, then the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem could not be a prophecy as my opponent views hold. The date is only crucial to a Preterist view, and has no bearing for any other interpretation of Revelation (Idealist, historicist, and futurist). " The question is not whether it is crucial but what information Scripture actually relays. I pointed out the relevance of the audience being addressed and some of the overarching themes that I believe are important in understanding Scripture. Con's Argument 1 - External Evidence 1) Irenaeus Con:"Irenaeus, an early church father, was an acolyte of Polycarp who was an acolyte of John the Evangelist. " What Con fails to mention here is that Irenaeus was a child when he met Polycarp and he did not take note of the meeting at the time, but wrote about it from memory much later. [1] Con: "He has a unique perspective into the authorship of Revelation since he has a direct tie to the author and the subject matter. His testimony was clear and unambiguous: Revelation was written near the end of Domitian's reign. " Quite the contrary, his testimony is not at all clear and unambiguous. Ken Gentry notes the opposite in five points. I invite Con to read the evidence against his position in the link. I add Gentry's first two points here. He cites Thomas Ice and Wayne House's objections which seem to be very similar to the points Con is making. It seems to be the same old argument regurgitated over and over again by late date advocates: First, after citing Irenaeus's passage from Against Heresies, they employ a "debater's technique" (to borrow their own phrase again) by attempting to promote their point as "clear. " They write: "How does Chilton deal with such a clear statement? " As I have noted previously, Irenaeus's translators have commented on the difficulty of translating and interpreting him. In light of such a problem as mentioned by several noted historians and linguists, how could Irenaeus's statement be deemed "clear"? Second, after citing a particular English translation of Irenaeus, they comment: "Chilton questions whether [Irenaeus's] "that was seen" refers to "the apocalyptic vision" or to John himself. Since the impersonal pronoun "that" is used we can assume that it refers to John's "apocalyptic vision. " This is a serious blunder. It is obvious that they are not even aware that in the original Greek of Against Heresies, there is no "impersonal pronoun 'that'""! The "that" which forms the basis of their argument is an English translator's interpolation! To argue as they have is equivalent to stating that an italicized word in the Bible indicates God emphasized the point, when actually it is the translator's cue to the reader that the English has been supplied despite the lack of any term in the original language. This is a "debater's technique" one which loses points when the debater's opponent has read the primary sources citation in its original language. [2] In other words from Gentry: "The all-important question in the matter is: Did Irenaeus mean to say that Revelation was seen by John in Domitian"s reign? Or did he mean that John, who saw the Revelation, was seen in Domitian"s reign? " [3] On Eusebius Gentry notes: "Eusebius disputes the opinion that Revelation was written by the Apostle John. And this despite the fact Irenaeus (who claims to have known Polycarp, who knew John) was certain that the Apostle wrote It. For some reason, obviously compelling to Eusebius, he felt justified in contradicting Irenaeus's emphatic statements regarding the Johannine authorship of Revelation. Eusebius's countering of Irenaeus 's witness in this area surely indicates that this great chronicler of the Church did not conceive of Irenaeus as above reproach on historical matters. " [4] Eusebius Ecclessiastieal History 5:8:5-6 notes: "5. . .. In the fifth book he [Irenaeus] speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies,. .. " [5] Ancient copies of the Apocalypse (Revelation) suggests the book to have been around for a long time when Irenaeus wrote. Gentry then goes on to note a number of Irenaeus's historical errors. Since so many who cite him came to depend on Irenaeus's reputation, uncritically, this is important to note since so many rely on and quote his writings. "Late date advocate Guthrie admits that Irenaeus is too often uncritical in his evaluation of evidence. Another, and even more vigorous, late date advocate, James Moffatt, observes that "Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological. "" [6] 2) John's exile to Patmos Con: "Domitian reigned from 81AD to 96AD. This easily puts the writing of Revelation well after 70A. D. , but more specifically John wrote Revelation between 90-96A. D. according to Irenaues. " This is not "easily" put or a specific at all. Again, Kenneth Gentry notes that there is noteworthy evidence from some church fathers that John was also banished under Nero's reign to Patmos. Con cites Revelation 1:9 but fails to recognize that John very likely was banished there twice, once under Nero and once under Domitian. Con's quotation from Irenaeus is covered under Gentry's five points (above) and I invite Con to read them. The Syriac version of Revelation states: "The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by NERO THE EMPEROR. " Most of the Syriac translations, which are known as the "Peshito,""Curetonian," the "Philoexenian" and the "Harclean" are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second, but the ones containing Revelation are not believed to be quite that old. " [7] The first real persecution of the church was from A. D. 64-68 during Nero's reign. It is also interesting to note Nero's original name - Lucius DOMITIUS Ahenobarbus. [8] Con: "However, we have history to show Domitian did indeed use exile as a punishment. " I can make the same assertion about Nero. As Con notes, Nero was cruel to Christians. He was known by many as "the Beast". Domitian was not known for singling out Christians as Nero was. Nero blamed them for the fire of Rome as recorded by Josephus, Pliny, Tactitus, Suetonius, etc. (See Gentry, BJF, p. 69 onwards) If John was exiled by Domitian and condemned to the labor of the mines that would him about 90-100 years old. It is highly unlikely that Victorinus got his facts right on this matter. It is more likely 30 years earlier under the reign of Nero that he was put to hard labor in the mines. (See Gentry's comments on p.99 of BJF. I will continue with Con's argument # 3, 4, 5 in my next post. [1] Against Hereries 3:3:4. . http://www.ccel.org... [2] Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell (BJF), p. 345-346 . http://www.rpts.edu... [3] Ibid. p. 334. [4] Ibid. p. 63. [5] . http://www.ccel.org... [6] BJF, p. 61. [7] . http://christeternalchristianchurch.com... [8] . http://www.britannica.com...