[HarleyD]

The stuff between the brackets is editorial comment, is it not?

The stuff in brackets is not editorial comments. Rather it let the read know who the subject is about without having to post the entire piece. These references are pulled out of my above piece. The reference to the document is there if you would like to check it out.

My eschatology (such as it is) is not contingent upon a late date for Revelation. The preterist position is completely destroyed if Revelation was penned after 70AD. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it was penned much later than 70AD and as late as 96AD. It is the preterist who must grasp at straws.

Neither is mine (such as it is) but I would question the "preponderance of evidence". What evidence? I thought that is what we were discussing here? The evidence of one person's one statement that is contradicted by a Canon and another person of the same period? That is what it boils down to. This is a preponderance of evidence?

I would say dispensationalists who would like to toss out 1900 years of church teaching that believers are the new Israel, simply based upon one tiny statement that is suspect, are more likely to be grasping at straws.

The Tyrant Previously Identified as Nero.

Next time you see an article about Prince, check to see how many times they use the name "Nero" in place of his name.

[P-Marlowe]

The evidence of one person's one statement that is contradicted by a Canon

The Title page of the Book of Revelation in my St. Scofield Reference edition states that the book was penned in 96AD. You can't find better evidence than that.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Next time you see an article about Prince, check to see how many times they use the name "Nero" in place of his name.

soooo.... is Prince the antichrist?