[HarleyD]

Because there were later theological ideas does not negate the earliest ideas.

It doesn't negate the earliest ideas but it doesn't mean that the earliest ideas were correct. Look at what this author reasoning is...

Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned as an essential part of the Christian religion

The author is saying that since this doctrine appeared so early in the writings it must be true. If this was true than we all better agree that the Eucharist actually turns into the actual body and blood of Christ. I know many of them (if not all) wrote about that far more than the end times. I can tell you from reading through many of these blessed saints that I certainly wouldn't make the claim of the Eucharist let alone the end times.

Just because most of them may have held a particular belief doesn't make it right. Protestants have always rigthfully held the church fathers in high regards. But in the end all we can do is use the Bible to argue as our actual source. I think there is more of an argument in the dating of Revelation than there is basing it on what the church fathers felt. But I wouldn't hang my hat on any of it.

The Orthodox, on the other thread, feel just as skeptical about the writings of Revelation as I do. If anyone has the best handle on the early church fathers and what they had to say, IMHO, it's the Orthodox. Appartently they are very suspicious about the whole book and rarely discuss it.

[fortheDeclaration]

The Orthodox, on the other thread, feel just as skeptical about the writings of Revelation as I do. If anyone has the best handle on the early church fathers and what they had to say, IMHO, it's the Orthodox. Appartently they are very suspicious about the whole book and rarely discuss it.

Well, that is a great approach to sola scriptura!

Lets just ignore a Book in the Bible.

The two most important Books in the Bible are Genesis and Revelation.

The first tells us how man got in the mess he is in, and second, how he gets out of it.