Could Barak Obama be the Anti Christ?

[mfblume]

The following Futurists mentioned an early date this as well:

Dr. E. Earle Ellis (1980)
“At the same time in some New Testament books the silence about the destruction of Jerusalem is very surprising; that is, in books where Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction appears (Matthew, Mark, Luke), where the critique of the temple or its transitory character is a major theme (Acts, Hebrews) and where God’s judgments on a disobedient Jewish nation are of particular interest to the writer (Acts, Jude). In these cases the absence of any illusion to the destruction would seem to be a fairly strong argument that such books were written before that event took place. The fall of Jerusalem is important in another respect. It marked not only the catastrophic destruction of a city but also the end of the Jewish world as it had been known.” (“Dating the New Testament”, New Testament Studies, 26; p. 488)

Joseph A. Fitzmeyer (1978)
“I must admit that what Robinson writes about the Book of Revelation makes a great deal of sense. Here is a case where I might be inclined in the future to admit a pre-seventy dating.” (Review of Redating the New Testament, by John. A.T. Robinson, “Two Views of New Testament Interpretation: Popular and Technical, Interpretation 32; 1978, p. 312)

George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church ." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), p. 8.)

James Moffatt (1911)
"For recent defences of the Neronic date, see Hort (cp. JC. 160 f.), Simcox, Selwyn (op. fit. pp. 215f.), and B. W. Henderson (Life and PrincipaU ej Nero, 439 f.). The Domitianic date is argued, in addition to older critics like Mill, Hug, and Eichhom, by Hofmann, Lee, Havet, Milligan (Discussions. 75-148), Alford, Gloag (Introd. Joh. Writings}, Salmon (INT. 221-245), Schafer (Einl. 347-355), Godet, Holtzmann, Comely, Belser, Jillichex, Weizsacker, Harnack (ACL. ii. i. pp. 245 f.), McGiffert (AA. 634 f.), Zahn, Wernle, von Soden, Adeney (INT. 464 f.), Bousset, von Dobschuu, Well- hausen, Porter, R. Knopf (NZ. 38f.), Abbott, Kreyenbtlhl (Das Evglnt der Wahrheit, ii. 730 f.), Forbes, Swete, A. V. Green (Effusion Canonical Writings, 182 f.), and A. S. Peake (INT. i64f.), as well as t, from outlying fields, by J. Reville (Origines de repiscopal, i. 209 f.), F. C. Arnold (Die Neronische Christcnverfolgung, 1888), Neumann (LC., 1888, 842-843, reviewing Arnold), Ramsay (ORE. pp. 268-302, ET. xvi. 171-174, Seven Letters, 93-127), S. Gsell (Kfgne de timpereur Domititn, 1895, pp. 307 f.), Matthaei (Preussische Jahrb., 1905, 402-479), and E. T. Klette (Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero, 1907, 46-48).(An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p.508)

Robert Mounce (1977)
"the Cambridge trio (Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort) were unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the reign of Nero or the years immediately following." And "such a threefold cord of scholarly opinion is not quickly broken" but that he (Swete) is "unable to see that the historical situation presupposed by the Apocalypse contradicts the testimony of Irenaeus which assigns the vision to the end of the reign of Domitian." Mounce seem to agree with Swete on this (p. 21).

J.W. Roberts (1972)
“According to Robert Feuillet the nearest thing to a consensus that has been reached about the study of Revelation in this century is that the original author and readers understood the book to be speaking about events connected with and/or in the immediate future of the age in which it was written; i.e., it is to be interpreted from the preterist point of view.” (“The Meaning of the Eschatology in the Book of Revelation,” Restoration Quarterly 15: 96)

J. A. T. Robinson (1976)
"It is indeed generally agreed that this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation. . . . There seems therefore no reason why the oracle should not have been uttered by a Christian prophet as the doom of the city drew nigh." (Redating the New Testament pp.. 240-242).

"It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at (as a past fact)? (Redating, p. 10).

"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". (Ibid., p. 13.)

“If the Book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence is deafening.” (The Last Days According to Jesus, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998; p. 147)

N.I.V. Study Bible (1973)
"Revelation was written when Christians were entering a time of persecution. The two periods most often mentioned are the latter part of Nero's reign (A.D.54-68) and the latter part of Dominian's reign (81-96).

Albert Schweitzer (1906)
"The apocalyptic discourses in Mark xiii., Matt. xxiv., and Luke xxi. are interpolated. A Jewish-Christian apocalypse of the first century, probably composed before the destruction of Jerusalem, has been interwoven with a short exhortation which Jesus gave on the occasion when He predicted the destruction of the temple.. His construction rests upon two main points of support; upon his view of the sources and his conception of the eschatology of the time of Jesus. In his view the sole source for the Life of Jesus is the Gospel of Mark, which was "probably written exactly in the year 73," five years after the Johannine apocalypse." (Quest for the Historical Jesus)

C. C. Torrey (1941)
"There are indeed very obvious reasons why the Apocalypse should now seem to call for drastic alteration, for it cannot be made to fit the present scheme of New Testament dogma. If the Church in its beginnings was mainly Gentile and opposed to Judaism, this Book of Revelation can hardly be understood. It is very plainly a mixture of Jewish and Christian elements, and the hope of effecting a separation of the two naturally suggests itself It is, however, a perfectly futile dream, as the many attempts have abundantly shown. Every chapter in the book is both Jewish and Christian, and only by very arbitrary proceedings can signs of literary composition be formed. The trouble is not with the book, but with the prevailing theory of Christian origins.’ (Documents of the Primitive Church , p. 77.)

H.A. Whittaker
"In A.D. 66, the well supported early date for the writing of Revelation, Jerusalem also was a city which 'had a kingdom over the kings of the Land.' Indeed, not only was Jerusalem a city with special authority over the various tetrarchies adjoining Judaea, but also the temple had an amazing degree of authority over Jewish communities in all parts of the Roman empire." (Revelation, page 214).

Herbert B. Workman (1906)
"St. John’s banishment to Patmos was itself a result of the great persecution of Nero. Hard labour for life in the mines and quarries of certain islands, especially Sardinia, formed one of the commonest punishments for Christians. . . . He lived through the horrors of two great persecutions, and died quietly in extreme old age at Ephesus." (Persecution in the Early Church, pp. 18, 19).