CX

BTW, it's worth mentioning that most millenarianists will insist that since John of Patmos (whom they will no doubt mistaken refer to as the Apostle John) repeatedly says or implies that he is prophesying AND since those prophecies largely didn't come true that they must be referring to the present day or some future time. That argument is ultimately unassailable by any rational means.

gregor

Mdadkins

Two items.

1. Dating the Revelation

I have NEVER read a single scholar propose a pre-70 dating for the Apocalypse of John (a.k.a the Revelation). I would be very appreciative of any source for your credible dating. Please provide a web-link.

Let me site from a great web resource - Peter Kirby's Early Christian writings that discusses all manner of NT items, citing hundreds of sources:
______________
"According to the oldest tradition [in Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3] Rev was written toward the end of the reign of Domitian (81-96). The book's own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian."
______________

I tend to agree with Burton Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament) that there is insufficient evidence of oppression under Domitian, but there is better evidence in 115 CE.

2. Preterism

The theory behind this excuse for the Olivet failure is the claim that the Temple and city destruction was the fulfullment of the second coming promise. However, what if there was a late second centure NT work that lamented that the promised second coming had not occurred? What were the early Xians saying in 160 CE? Were they saying that the Olivet discourse had been fulfilled?

Hardly.

2 Peter was written well into the second century, and maybe later. It was not known to Ireneas, although 1 Peter was. Let me again cite to Kirby:
___________________
"As to dating, Perrin suggests (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 262): "He is probably the latest of all the New Testament writers, and a date about A.D. 140 would be appropriate." Nearly all scholars would agree with a date sometime in the second century, probably in the second quarter."
___________________

Read 2 Peter and note how it laments that the second coming has not occured, despite the extreme passage of time. Then tell me the Olivet discourse was fulfilled.

Madkins007

gregor- thank you for the reply! Once I have figured out what you said, I will think on it!

As for early dating of Revelations, as I said, I am a newbie at preterism so have not dug into it at depth yet, but here is one article I was able to locate quickly. My original source of information was a book that I can not recall the title of right now, so cannot offer it for your consideration. The site I did find after a quick search is "http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=27"

As for 2 Peter, one of the things I LOVE about posting at Internet infidels is having things I thought I 'knew' challenged and the chance to learn new things. I am amazed at what I learned about 2 Peter- the debates on whether it is a real epistle and who wrote it, etc. I found a lot of references to a lot of dates. I enjoyed this site (http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/2petotl.htm} and their discussion of the issue and several possible dates.

Hey! Looking at the entry for Revelations at the above site (www.bible.org), I found this- http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/re....htm#P68_19126. Check out footnote 17 "See Guthrie [note- Donald Guthrie, New Testament introduction] for arguments for both sides, 949-61. Also, see the master’s thesis by Ragan Ewing (Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002) for excellent arguments for a pre-70 date."

I do not have the tools to play the 'my scholar beats your scholar' game, but these are some interesting things to research for me. Thank you!

gregor

Thanks for the reply.

I haven't seen anything that really supports a pre-90 CE dating for the Apocalypse of John. That final web site you posted was to a Dallas-based church, not a university. And even this apparently conservative source chose a date of authorship in the reign of Domitian (80-90 CE). The only contrary argument from that source was to cite a masters thesis from a student at the Dallas Theological Seminary.

I don't see any scholars supporting any early dating argument.

King Rat

They sure as heil do, what do you think that two-year supply is for? Revelations is about the only thing in the bible that the Mo's do believe in.

Magdlyn

You are wrong as well.

dado

considering early travellers through Utah had a tendencey to get stuck and eat each other, i'd think storing up food in that environment is damn good advice. i will say this for LDS - they are the only major x'ian stream i know of who have the good sense to acknowledge the pointlessness of a closed canon.

King Rat

Um, I'm ex LDS.

Magdlyn

Basic beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1082-1,00.html

Surprise! More than just Revelation.

King Rat

What are you talking about? My post was in response to this statement by Madkins007:

The LDS DO ACCEPT REVELATIONS, in fact it is one of the few books in the bible that they believe is most complete.

Magdlyn, I'm having difficulty understanding what it is you are trying to refute. Especially since I am an ex-mormon, I'm quite familiar with the doctrine. Do you have any more websites that ALSO SUPPORT MY POST?