Since Revelation was written by John in 95 AD, it could not be a prophesy of events 25 years before that.
Your entire theological system crmubles to dust unless Revelation was written in AD66. To assume that is to assume a position against 99% of biblical scholars. Hitchcock dealt the deathblow to Gentry's work 10 years ago.
I suggest you read it.
>>>Since Revelation was written by John in 95 AD, it could not be a prophesy of events 25 years before that.<<<
Who said the Revelation was written in AD 95?
>>>Your entire theological system crmubles to dust unless Revelation was written in AD66.<<<
Actually, I believe it was written aroun 62 AD when there were exactly seven churches in Asia.
>>>Hitchcock dealt the deathblow to Gentry’s work 10 years ago.<<<
Mark Hitchcock? ROFL! I thought you were being serious until you wrote that. ROFL! That is the funniest thing I have read in quite a while.
Philip
I have to agree with you on that one. I would argue against that from a historical perspective; but nearly all (if not all) late date adherents (those who believe the Revelation was written after AD 70) have it "locked up" with this "crystal clear" statement by Irenaeus, as follows:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." [Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.3]
If that is not "crystal clear," what is?
Just kidding. Does anyone have any idea what Irenaeus was trying to say?
One thing is for certain: Irenaeus made it clear that the event he was referring to happened "almost in his day."
Now we have something to work with: something happened almost in Irenaeus' day, which he labelled as "that [which] was seen." Many historians and researchers have assumed the "apocalyptic vision" from the previous clause was what Irenaeus was referring to in his statement, "that [which] was seen."
I admit: that is a very reasonable assumption.
But then, there is this statement by Irenaeus only two paragraphs earlier:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;" [Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.1]
How can it be that an "apocalyptic vision" that happened "almost in Irenaeus' day," and was THEN written in a book, copied several times, and "approved," would be considered, by the same Irenaeus, in an earlier part of his book, as being "ancient?"
That just doesn't happen, folks. Don't believe it, for a minute.
Philip