Revelation Was Written Before A.D 70.

Pro has not responded adequately to most of my arguments, and in fact he has not addressed some of them at all: 1. Ireneaus – Pro has attempted to call into question the character of my witness. PGA has stated he made vague statements, and was misunderstood. He has no adequate response for the early church fathers clearly understanding his words, as I have established. 2. John’s exile - I established John was exiled in Patmos according to scripture backed by Ireneaus’ statement endorsed by the church fathers, and Domitian's precedent of exile for other Christians (Flavia Domitilla). Pro asserts Nero exiled Christians but showed only Gentry as evidence to verify his claim. Also, we have precedent of Nero killing the disciples Peter and Paul, but we are to believe Nero was merciful on John. Domitian was the emperor who exiled John. 3. Condition of the churches - I established particular churches were much too young or much too poor to have reached the descriptions in Revelation by 70AD. Pro cited scripture to show some churches were having difficulty, and while I agree some churches could have deteriorated, I find it unlikely that all would have in as little as 5 years. Pro did not address the church at Smyrna which would have been the youngest of all the churches. 4. Prophecy of Revelation - The mark of the beast and the false prophet arguments were inadequately answered. The mark of the beast is a very specifically worded and should not be vaguely interpreted as “those who serve Rome. ” I did not see an explanation of the false prophet. I reminded Pro, “Revelation must be completely fulfilled” in order for his viewpoint to meet its BoP. I submit he has not met his requirement on this argument. 5. Language in Revelation - Pro rightly pointed out these were assertions since I provided no source originally. I provided sources after the fact, but obviously Pro did not have a response or did not have the space to respond. Considering my mistake on this, he should have this argument. 6. Practical implications - Pro completely dismisses this argument stating there are only two ages in the Bible, and we are in the OT age. The resurrection of Jesus started our current NT age, and when he returns will be the start of the third age: the world to come (Hebrews 2:5). He did not respond directly to any of my implications. My argument still stands. 7. Second Coming of Jesus - If Revelation was completely fulfilled in 70 AD, and Jesus has returned, why is man ignorant of this fact? It does not appear Pro has responded to this. Rebuttal Starting with Audience Relevance Pro and I agree there are audience specific passages in the Bible. Therefore, to say audience specificity is an argument exclusively for his position is a fallacy. A friend commenting to me concerning audience relevance said: ". ..1. 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. " 1. This is an assertion I disagree with. 2 & 3. A persecution of early Christians by Jews should show the destruction of the temple would be less important for early Gentile Christians, not the other way around. 4. The fact that there are passages warning against Judaizing agrees with audience specificity which I do not deny. 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. " Pro has not refuted the verses in Daniel 9 and Ezekiel 40-43 where temples which were known to be destroyed were measured in visions. 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. Act 2:16-21 Peter was using the experience of the pentacost to tell of the future fulfillment in which God’s spirit would be poured on ALL mankind. Since some in close proximity thought those affected were drunk, this was not ALL mankind. Pro has assigned a different meaning for this passage in spite of obvious flaws in this argument. Con's A#1 lists Irenaeus as a chief source for a late date Robert Young (1885) quote "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] Early church fathers much more closely relevant to the era in which Ireneaus was writing than 1885 did not feel his statements to be confusing. It was well understood who he was talking about per my argument #1. 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] David Crews does not state Ireneaus is wrong. Con's A#5, concerning the current age: Hebrews as a definition of ‘generation’ is tenuous, and “this generation” in context with the future in which Jesus was speaking would be accurate in Matthew 24:34. Con rejects my explanation of the churches being addressed at an early date… I do not deny the possibility some of the churches could have deteriorated. I deny the likelihood ALL would have deteriorated to such an extent within a 5 year period in some cases. A longer time period is much more plausible. 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. 69 weeks of the prophecy of Daniel have been fulfilled. The 70th week will be fulfilled in the great tribulation. If Pro insists the 70 weeks have been fulfilled then he must assume Israel was a “spiritual” nation, and this would leave many unfulfillable prophecies concerning the physical nation of Israel. Thank you for hosting the debate, Pro. Win or lose, you have had an atheist doing some heavy Bible study! Grumble!