Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
Sorry guys to break up your preterist pow wow with negativity. Couldnt resist getting involved a little....LOL
A favorite argument among preterists is that the book of Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, and hence the book must have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Rome overran Jerusalem. Futurists point out, however, that some of the earliest church Fathers confirmed a late date, including Irenaeus (who knew Polycarp, John’s disciple) who claimed the book was written at the close of the reign of Domitian (which took place from A.D. 81—96). Victorinus confirmed this date in the third century, as did Eusebius (263-340). Hence, since the book was written after A.D. 70, it could hardly have been referring to events that would be fulfilled in A.D. 70.
Against preterism, futurists note that key events described in the book of Revelation simply did not occur in A.D. 70. For example, in A.D. 70 “a third of mankind” was not killed, as predicted in Revelation 9:18. Nor has “every living creature in the sea died,” as predicted in Revelation 16:3. In order to explain these texts, preterists must resort to an allegorical interpretation since they did not happen literally. |
A favorite argument among futurists is the Book of Revelation was written After AD70, and hence the book must be fulfilled after AD 70. lol
Do bare in mind, not all church fathers agreed to the premise that it was written after AD70. True, some did, but some is not the whole. The most common person quoted, didn't seem to have the greatest math skills or at least failed to report accurately.
"Here Irenaeus claims an *apostolic tradition*, barely a century after the ministry of the apostles (and less, in the case of John), that claims that Jesus was more than 50 years of age at His death."
Does anyone here support his math on the age of Jesus? If not, why use him as an authority on the age of the Book of Revelation? We have to admit, it is difficult to get a definite historical account as to when it was written, so if internal evidence can be used to support either side, then it could be considered. Everyone must claim certain things are symbolic, idioms or metaphors it's just how to determine what is and what is not.