“The earliest most credible witness for the 96 AD date is Irenaeus whose source, among others, would have been Polycarp, bishop of the church at Smyrna that received one of the seven letters that John wrote in 96 AD.” ~ Uncle Chip
See below:
No Deposit, No Return?
Essays on Eschatology
James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html
Eons ago I recall getting from a “turn or burn” relative one of those neat brochures that outlined an interpretation of the book of Revelation with pictures of people being “raptured” and trucks and cars and planes crashing as souls flew out of the driver’s/pilot’s places. I have of course read my Hal Lindsey, but since taking a more scholarly bent to my studies, haven’t thought much about it. I have said to others, if the parousia comes in my lifetime, it shall find me either asleep or in a library somewhere. The subject was of that little concern to me.
But it has become clear that certain questions dealing with eschatology, in particular the questions, “Did Jesus predict a soon return? Did the Apostles expect a soon return?”, have become grist for the skeptical and critical mill. Of course we know well that skeptics of the caliber of say, Farrell Till, are about as likely to understand what they are reading as they are to understand quantum physics. But I have corresponded with at least one person who has said that they were “losing their faith” over this very question, and I am sure others exist as well.
The Big Picture — what preterism is all about, basically
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.html
Issue #1: OT Background Data:
“The Day of the Lord”: An OT Judgmental Precursor
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/dayofl.html
The Book of Daniel and the Son of Man Precursor
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html
The Evidence of Other OT Prophets
Zechariah 14 and the Coming of Christ [Off Site]
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/demar-gary_pp_01.html
Issue #2: Does the NT teach a “soon” return of Jesus?:
Preterism and Ancient Present-Orientation — a backdoor defense of preterism based on a social orientation of the ancients
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/timepret.html
The Evidence of the Gospels — The Olivet Discourse http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html and Miscellaneous Synoptic Passages — see also here [Off Site]
The Evidence of the Pauline literature
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/paulend.html
The Evidence of the Catholic epistles and Hebrews
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/hcesh.html
The Evidence of Revelation
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.html
The Kingdom of God in Preterist Eschatology
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/kingpret.html
On the location of Christ’s reign [Warren]
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/ddwplace.html
Raising Cain and Abel — against views on resurrection, by [Warren]
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/raisecain.html
Responses to Preterism:
From the In Depth Bible Studies site
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschback01.html
A debate between ...Warren and a dispensationalist
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/tolpret.html
From a very, er, peculiar website
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/dovtail.html
From (HA HA, HEE HEE HEE) Skeptic X (please control yourself)
http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillpfft.html
From Evangelical scholar Thomas Ice (ah — now that’s better!)
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretice.html
From Ice and Tim LaHaye in The End Times Controversy (wish this were better, but it isn’t). http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretice2.html Analysis by Gary DeMar as well, here.
Responses to “Full Preterism”(Hyper Preterism):
On the error of Hymenaenism”
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/hythere.html
Stephen Smith on “Spiritual Israel”
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/smithst01.html
Dale Allison on the Use of Metaphor
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschall.html
Eschatology.org on resurrection
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/rezwreck.html
“Dualistic Eschatology” by Tracy VanWyngaarden
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/wyngaar01.html
“Grave” Error: Hyper-preterism and the Response of the Church by ... Warren
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/grave.html
http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/pret01.html
Preterist argument from internal evidence.
The clear familiarity of John with Temple worship in Revelation is alleged to indicate that both he and his readers relied on personal knowledge of Temple worship in Jerusalem. According to preterists, this implies that the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Revelation was written.
However, this argument is flawed at its very foundation. The Old Testament is full of the same Temple imagery. Any Gentile Christian familiar with the Old Testament (LXX) would be sufficiently familiar with the Temple imagery. Furthermore, familiarity with the New Testament book of Hebrews would also be sufficient. Even a cursory reading of Revelation reveals that John’s visions and comments reference Old Testament prophecy on every page.
Ezekiel saw a future Temple in his prophetic visions. [9] Yet, his visions occurred during the Babylonian captivity years after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Many of those who returned after the seventy year captivity to rebuild the Temple had never seen Solomon’s Temple, or observed its rituals. [10] Their familiarity with the Temple was based solely on the Torah and scrolls like Ezekiel’s and Daniel’s.
The Temple destroyed by the Romans has been gone for nearly 2000 years. If preterists’ claim is correct, we should not be able to understand Revelation or write about Temple worship today because we have no personal first-hand knowledge of the Temple and its rituals. Such a position is absurd, since our knowledge of the Temple comes from the Scriptures. Neither the writing nor understanding of Revelation requires or implies first hand knowledge of the Temple. The Old Testament is sufficient. John certainly was himself familiar with the Temple, having been there with Jesus on several occasions. And his readers were well trained in the Old Testament Scriptures.
That John was told in his vision to “measure the Temple and them that worship therein,”[11] is likewise no indication that the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. This prophetic vision clearly parallels Ezekiel’s vision. [12] Ezekiel saw his vision during the Babylonian captivity, fourteen years after Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.[13] Yet, in his vision, Ezekiel was taken to Jerusalem, shown a glorious Temple far larger than Solomon’s Temple, and proceeded to record all the measurements of the Temple in great detail. John saw his prophetic Temple vision during Domitian’s reign (AD81-96). We don’t know exactly when during his reign he was exiled, nor how long prior to his release he wrote Revelation. But, the possible timespan covers anywhere from eleven to twenty six years after the destruction of the Temple by Titus. It certainly COULD have also been fourteen years following the Temple’s destruction, just like Ezekiel’s Temple vision. It is obvious that the command given John to “measure the Temple” was meant to parallel Ezekiel’s vision. Since Ezekiel saw his Temple vision fourteen years after the first Temple had been destroyed and lay in ruins, there is every reason to conclude that the same situation existed when John wrote Revelation. Ezekiel’s Temple vision and prophecy was clearly intended to indicate a future rebuilt Temple. Ezekiel did not see the former (Solomon’s) Temple that had been destroyed, or a Temple that was currently standing. Therefore, John’s vision of the Temple in Jerusalem should be seen in the same way, being an indication and prophecy that the Temple will indeed be rebuilt. Contrary to the claim that John’s Temple vision indicates that Herod’s Temple was still standing, when compared to the parallel account in Ezekiel, it seems obvious that both prophecies of measuring the Temple were given shortly after the Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. The former in Ezekiel’s day by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, and the latter in John’s day by Titus and the Romans.
That this is how the early Christians understood Revelation, even after the destruction of the Temple, is clear from their statements to the effect that the Temple in Jerusalem will be the seat of the Antichrist in the last days. [14]
The preterist’s attempts to date Revelation before the destruction of Jerusalem fail on both internal and external evidence. This failure is indicative of their whole system, which is forced upon the Scriptures, and in this case, upon history as well. Preterist scholarship on this question is clearly agenda driven.