The Dangerous Lie of Preterism

[Still Alive]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It is actually quite popular and is in various denominations.

Wow. I gotta get out more.

BTW, what happened to the thread that had this exact same name? It wasn't closed or anything. It's just gone. That's really weird. Unless someone came unglued after I was last there it seemed like an excellent "iron sharpening iron" thing.

[Guest shiloh357]

37 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Wow. I gotta get out more.

BTW, what happened to the thread that had this exact same name? It wasn't closed or anything. It's just gone. That's really weird. Unless someone came unglued after I was last there it seemed like an excellent "iron sharpening iron" thing.

It got so far  off topic that it had to be replaced.

[Still Alive]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

It got so far  off topic that it had to be replaced.

Thanks. In respect for that thinking, I'll not bring It up again.

I think people who fall for Preterism these days could be the equivalent of someone who sees one of those "flat earth" youtube videos and thinks, "yeah, I just always assumed it was a globe, but these guys are right."

What I mean by that is one can come to a conclusion based on written or eyewitness evidence and then just accept it their whole life, but when someone comes along with a slick case for it being false, having long forgotten the specifics of why they believe what they believe, they can be ripe to believe the new teaching. The best defense against that is the Berean attitude.

A case can be made for preterism, just as a case can be made for a flat earth. But when all the evidence is laid out, both of those cases fall flat remarkably fast and with finality.

[enoob57]

When all the evidence is evaluated it hinges upon assumption in writing styles and who is meant by "tyrant" verses a clear cut statement... I would suppose all to be considered the clear cut statement is where I would stand...
[snip]

DATE.

There are two principal theories regarding the date of the Apocalypse - the one ascribing it to about the year 69, or even earlier; and the other to about the year 96, or later. The reversed figures are easy to remember. The advocates of the earlier date refer St. John's banishment to the Neronian persecution, and believe the Apocalypse to have preceded the Fourth Gospel by a period of nearly or quite thirty years. Those who support the later date hold that the author was banished under Domitian, and that the Gospel was written before the Apocalypse, or, at latest, very soon after it. We believe that the earlier date is the right one, for the following reasons.

1. The internal evidence in support of it is very strong. The linguistic phenomena, the doctrinal expressions, and the methods of conveying Christian truth, in the two books are such as irresistibly lead the student to the conviction that the Apocalypse is much earlier than the Gospel. This argument has been ably drawn out by Canon Westcott (Introduction to St. John's Gospel in the ' Speaker's Commentary,' pp. 84. - 87.).

(1) Regarding the linguistic phenomena, he says, "Nor is it difficult to see that, in any case, intercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time naturally reduce the style of the author of the Apocalypse to that of the author of the Gospel. It is, however, very difficult to suppose that the language of the writer of the Gospel could pass at a later time, in a Greek-speaking country, into the language of the Apocalypse."

(2) Regarding the doctrinal expressions: "The Apocalypse is doctrinally the uniting link between the synoptists and the Fourth Gospel. It offers the characteristic thoughts of the Fourth Gospel in that form of development which belongs to the earliest apostolic age. It belongs to different historical circumstances, to a different phase of intellectual progress, to a different theological stage, from that of St. John's Gospel; and yet it is not only harmonious with it in teaching, but in the order of thought it is the necessary germ out of which the Gospel proceeded by a process of life."

(3) Regarding the methods of conveying Christian truth: "Of the two books the Apocalypse is the earlier. It is less developed, both in thought and style. The material imagery in which it is composed includes the idea of progress in interpretation. The symbols are living. On the other hand, to go back from the teaching of the Gospel to that of the Apocalypse, to  clothe clear thought in figures, to reduce the full expression of truth to its rudimentary beginnings, seems to involve a moral miracle, which would introduce confusion into life."

2. The clear and positive external testimony against it is not strong, being reducible (as it seems to us) to the solitary statement of Irenaeus, near the end of the second century, that the Apocalypse was seen towards the close of Domitian's reign. Domitian was emperor from A.D. 81 A.D. to 96. Irenaeus, writing a century after the fact, may easily have made the mistake of putting the name of one famous persecuting emperor instead of the other, and it is remarkable that his statement is supported by no other writer earlier than Victorinus of Pettau, after a second interval of a century. Eusebius and Jerome, in the fourth century, do not strengthen what they merely repeat.

3. The remaining early evidence as to the time when the Apocalypse was written is certainly reconcilable with, and seems rather in favour of, the earlier date. We refer particularly to the oft-quoted passages of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.

 

(1) Clement ('Quis Salvus Dives?' § 42, quoted in Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' 3:23) says that St. John went from the island of Patmos to Ephesus "after the tyrant was dead (‎tou= tura/nnou teleuth/santo$‎); " that from Ephesus, as his head-quarters, he used to go when required to the neighboring Gentile districts to appoint bishops in one place, to regulate whole Churches in another, to ordain clergy in a third; that in one of these journeys he entrusted a youth to the bishop's care, with a special charge; that the youth was nurtured and brought up by the ecclesiastic, and at last (‎to\ teleutai=on‎) baptized; that afterwards (‎meta\ tou=to‎) the guardian's care relaxed, and the youth fell into bad company, who at first (‎prw=ton men‎) enticed him to love their society, then led him on step by step (‎ei+ta ‎.... ‎ei+ta ‎. .., ‎kat okli/gon ‎‎proseiqi/zeto‎), until at length (‎tele/w$‎) he renounced his religion, and became a daring criminal and a chieftain of banditti; that after a lapse of time (‎xro/no$ e)n me/sw| kai\‎) an occasion arose when the apostle's presence was again needed at the same place, the people sent for him, and he came; that after settling the matter for which they had requested his visit, St. John inquired of the bishop respecting that which he had entrusted to his care; that the bishop did not at first understand what was meant, but, when St. John explained himself, told the youth's sad history; that the apostle, exhibiting most poignant grief, demanded a horse and guide, and rode off at once (‎w%sper ei+xen‎) to seek the lost youth, and that he succeeded in reclaiming him.

 

Clement's language leaves no doubt that he believed the whole of these events of St. John's stay in Asia, with Ephesus as his center of operations, to have been posterior to "the tyrant's" death; and so Eusebius understood him. Clement does not give the name of "the tyrant" to whom he refers: but Eusebius, influenced (as we may reasonably suppose) by the express statement of Irenaeus, with whose writings he was very familiar, takes it for granted that Domitian is meant; and many modern writers agree with  him. Archdeacon Lee, for instance, in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' p. 415, goes so far as to say that "the tyrant" could be no other than Domitian. But when we reflect that Domitian's death did not take place till September, 96, and that it is highly improbable that St. John outlived the first century, we feel that it is impossible to compress the events of the foregoing narrative into the short intervening space of three or at the most four years - to say nothing of the difficulty of believing that St. John, in such extreme old age as he must have attained at the time of Domitian's death, could have commenced and carried on the active life which we have abundant reason for supposing he spent at Ephesus, even if we set aside the story of his riding on horseback into the mountains after the guerilla captain. If, therefore, Eusebius was right {as he probably was) in placing the long stay of St. John at Ephesus after his exile in Patmos, we hold that he must have been mistaken in supposing that "the tyrant" mentioned by Clement was Domitian. We differ so completely from Archdeacon Lee on this point, that we avow our conviction that "the tyrant" must be some other than Domitian.

And any schoolboy would perceive the fitness of the designation as applied to Nero, so proverbial for cruel tyranny, and so terrible a persecutor of the Christians. He died in the year 68, and we quite believe that he was the tyrant referred to by Clement. This would allow a period of about thirty years for the apostle's subsequent life and work in and around Ephesus, and some such period seems required by evidence derived from other sources and by the probabilities of the case.

(2) Tertullian is constantly associated with Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria - he completes the trio of eminent contemporaries whose works have in considerable bulk been preserved to us from the latter years of the second century. In a famous passage ('De Praescr. Hair.,' 36) he speaks of Rome as the place "ubi Petrus passioni Dominicae adaequatur; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur; nbi Apostolus Joannes, postea quam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur" - "where Peter suffered a death like our Lord's; where Paul was beheaded like John the Baptist; and where the Apostle John, after being plunged into burning-hot oil without being hurt, was banished to an island." We are quite willing to concede that this passage proves nothing as to the date of the Apocalypse, but we claim that it lends more support to the earlier than to the later of the alternative dates proposed. For, in the first place, it closely associates the banishment of St. John with the deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul, who are generally believed to have suffered martyrdom under Nero. And secondly, it expressly states that the banishment of St. John took place at Rome, which answers one objection made against the earlier date, viz. that the Neronian persecution was confined to Rome. Tertullian's view, whether right or wrong, seems to have been that St. John was once at Rome; that there he was accused, tried, and sentenced to exile; and that his place of exile was an island.  Another passage of his writings ('Apol.,' 5), sometimes brought forward, as indirectly bearing upon the present question, says that Domitian was a milder persecutor than Nero, and implies that he himself restored those whom he had banished; but makes no mention of St. John. And indeed, upon the supposition that the case of St. John was in Tertullian's mind when he wrote this passage, it would not agree with the theory most in favor with the advocates of the later date for the Apocalypse, namely, that St. John was one of the exiles set free by Nerva after Domitian's death; neither would the general tenor of it agree with the notion that Domitian rather than Nero was Styled emphatically "the tyrant."

(3) Origen, about the middle of the second century, having occasion in his commentary on St. Matthew ('Huet.,' 1:417 B) to mention that, "as tradition teaches, the Emperor of the Romans condemned John to the island of Patmos," goes apparently out of his way to remark that, in the Apocalypse, John himself does not say who condemned him. But Origen's language does not imply that there was any doubt as to which emperor had banished the apostle; much less does it assert that the name of the emperor was not given because St. John himself had not given it. It simply points out that it was from an external tradition and not from internal evidence (in St. John's own work, the Apocalypse) that people in the third century learnt the fact that St. John was banished by "the (not an) Emperor of the Romans." We cannot tell whether Origen had or had not any definite knowledge or theory as to which emperor the tradition blamed for condemning St. John; he certainly does not repeat Irenaeus's assertion that it was Domitian; and there is nothing to show that he did not think it was Nero.

 [snip]

[Still Alive]

16 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

When all the evidence is evaluated it hinges upon assumption in writing styles and who is meant by "tyrant" verses a clear cut statement... I would suppose all to be considered the clear cut statement is where I would stand...
[snip]

DATE.

There are two principal theories regarding the date of the Apocalypse - the one ascribing it to about the year 69, or even earlier; and the other to about the year 96, or later. The reversed figures are easy to remember. The advocates of the earlier date refer St. John's banishment to the Neronian persecution, and believe the Apocalypse to have preceded the Fourth Gospel by a period of nearly or quite thirty years. Those who support the later date hold that the author was banished under Domitian, and that the Gospel was written before the Apocalypse, or, at latest, very soon after it. We believe that the earlier date is the right one, for the following reasons.

1. The internal evidence in support of it is very strong. The linguistic phenomena, the doctrinal expressions, and the methods of conveying Christian truth, in the two books are such as irresistibly lead the student to the conviction that the Apocalypse is much earlier than the Gospel. This argument has been ably drawn out by Canon Westcott (Introduction to St. John's Gospel in the ' Speaker's Commentary,' pp. 84. - 87.).

(1) Regarding the linguistic phenomena, he says, "Nor is it difficult to see that, in any case, intercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time naturally reduce the style of the author of the Apocalypse to that of the author of the Gospel. It is, however, very difficult to suppose that the language of the writer of the Gospel could pass at a later time, in a Greek-speaking country, into the language of the Apocalypse."

(2) Regarding the doctrinal expressions: "The Apocalypse is doctrinally the uniting link between the synoptists and the Fourth Gospel. It offers the characteristic thoughts of the Fourth Gospel in that form of development which belongs to the earliest apostolic age. It belongs to different historical circumstances, to a different phase of intellectual progress, to a different theological stage, from that of St. John's Gospel; and yet it is not only harmonious with it in teaching, but in the order of thought it is the necessary germ out of which the Gospel proceeded by a process of life."

(3) Regarding the methods of conveying Christian truth: "Of the two books the Apocalypse is the earlier. It is less developed, both in thought and style. The material imagery in which it is composed includes the idea of progress in interpretation. The symbols are living. On the other hand, to go back from the teaching of the Gospel to that of the Apocalypse, to  clothe clear thought in figures, to reduce the full expression of truth to its rudimentary beginnings, seems to involve a moral miracle, which would introduce confusion into life."

2. The clear and positive external testimony against it is not strong, being reducible (as it seems to us) to the solitary statement of Irenaeus, near the end of the second century, that the Apocalypse was seen towards the close of Domitian's reign. Domitian was emperor from A.D. 81 A.D. to 96. Irenaeus, writing a century after the fact, may easily have made the mistake of putting the name of one famous persecuting emperor instead of the other, and it is remarkable that his statement is supported by no other writer earlier than Victorinus of Pettau, after a second interval of a century. Eusebius and Jerome, in the fourth century, do not strengthen what they merely repeat.

3. The remaining early evidence as to the time when the Apocalypse was written is certainly reconcilable with, and seems rather in favour of, the earlier date. We refer particularly to the oft-quoted passages of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.

 

(1) Clement ('Quis Salvus Dives?' § 42, quoted in Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' 3:23) says that St. John went from the island of Patmos to Ephesus "after the tyrant was dead (‎tou= tura/nnou teleuth/santo$‎); " that from Ephesus, as his head-quarters, he used to go when required to the neighboring Gentile districts to appoint bishops in one place, to regulate whole Churches in another, to ordain clergy in a third; that in one of these journeys he entrusted a youth to the bishop's care, with a special charge; that the youth was nurtured and brought up by the ecclesiastic, and at last (‎to\ teleutai=on‎) baptized; that afterwards (‎meta\ tou=to‎) the guardian's care relaxed, and the youth fell into bad company, who at first (‎prw=ton men‎) enticed him to love their society, then led him on step by step (‎ei+ta ‎.... ‎ei+ta ‎. .., ‎kat okli/gon ‎‎proseiqi/zeto‎), until at length (‎tele/w$‎) he renounced his religion, and became a daring criminal and a chieftain of banditti; that after a lapse of time (‎xro/no$ e)n me/sw| kai\‎) an occasion arose when the apostle's presence was again needed at the same place, the people sent for him, and he came; that after settling the matter for which they had requested his visit, St. John inquired of the bishop respecting that which he had entrusted to his care; that the bishop did not at first understand what was meant, but, when St. John explained himself, told the youth's sad history; that the apostle, exhibiting most poignant grief, demanded a horse and guide, and rode off at once (‎w%sper ei+xen‎) to seek the lost youth, and that he succeeded in reclaiming him.

 

Clement's language leaves no doubt that he believed the whole of these events of St. John's stay in Asia, with Ephesus as his center of operations, to have been posterior to "the tyrant's" death; and so Eusebius understood him. Clement does not give the name of "the tyrant" to whom he refers: but Eusebius, influenced (as we may reasonably suppose) by the express statement of Irenaeus, with whose writings he was very familiar, takes it for granted that Domitian is meant; and many modern writers agree with  him. Archdeacon Lee, for instance, in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' p. 415, goes so far as to say that "the tyrant" could be no other than Domitian. But when we reflect that Domitian's death did not take place till September, 96, and that it is highly improbable that St. John outlived the first century, we feel that it is impossible to compress the events of the foregoing narrative into the short intervening space of three or at the most four years - to say nothing of the difficulty of believing that St. John, in such extreme old age as he must have attained at the time of Domitian's death, could have commenced and carried on the active life which we have abundant reason for supposing he spent at Ephesus, even if we set aside the story of his riding on horseback into the mountains after the guerilla captain. If, therefore, Eusebius was right {as he probably was) in placing the long stay of St. John at Ephesus after his exile in Patmos, we hold that he must have been mistaken in supposing that "the tyrant" mentioned by Clement was Domitian. We differ so completely from Archdeacon Lee on this point, that we avow our conviction that "the tyrant" must be some other than Domitian.

And any schoolboy would perceive the fitness of the designation as applied to Nero, so proverbial for cruel tyranny, and so terrible a persecutor of the Christians. He died in the year 68, and we quite believe that he was the tyrant referred to by Clement. This would allow a period of about thirty years for the apostle's subsequent life and work in and around Ephesus, and some such period seems required by evidence derived from other sources and by the probabilities of the case.

(2) Tertullian is constantly associated with Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria - he completes the trio of eminent contemporaries whose works have in considerable bulk been preserved to us from the latter years of the second century. In a famous passage ('De Praescr. Hair.,' 36) he speaks of Rome as the place "ubi Petrus passioni Dominicae adaequatur; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur; nbi Apostolus Joannes, postea quam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur" - "where Peter suffered a death like our Lord's; where Paul was beheaded like John the Baptist; and where the Apostle John, after being plunged into burning-hot oil without being hurt, was banished to an island." We are quite willing to concede that this passage proves nothing as to the date of the Apocalypse, but we claim that it lends more support to the earlier than to the later of the alternative dates proposed. For, in the first place, it closely associates the banishment of St. John with the deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul, who are generally believed to have suffered martyrdom under Nero. And secondly, it expressly states that the banishment of St. John took place at Rome, which answers one objection made against the earlier date, viz. that the Neronian persecution was confined to Rome. Tertullian's view, whether right or wrong, seems to have been that St. John was once at Rome; that there he was accused, tried, and sentenced to exile; and that his place of exile was an island.  Another passage of his writings ('Apol.,' 5), sometimes brought forward, as indirectly bearing upon the present question, says that Domitian was a milder persecutor than Nero, and implies that he himself restored those whom he had banished; but makes no mention of St. John. And indeed, upon the supposition that the case of St. John was in Tertullian's mind when he wrote this passage, it would not agree with the theory most in favor with the advocates of the later date for the Apocalypse, namely, that St. John was one of the exiles set free by Nerva after Domitian's death; neither would the general tenor of it agree with the notion that Domitian rather than Nero was Styled emphatically "the tyrant."

(3) Origen, about the middle of the second century, having occasion in his commentary on St. Matthew ('Huet.,' 1:417 B) to mention that, "as tradition teaches, the Emperor of the Romans condemned John to the island of Patmos," goes apparently out of his way to remark that, in the Apocalypse, John himself does not say who condemned him. But Origen's language does not imply that there was any doubt as to which emperor had banished the apostle; much less does it assert that the name of the emperor was not given because St. John himself had not given it. It simply points out that it was from an external tradition and not from internal evidence (in St. John's own work, the Apocalypse) that people in the third century learnt the fact that St. John was banished by "the (not an) Emperor of the Romans." We cannot tell whether Origen had or had not any definite knowledge or theory as to which emperor the tradition blamed for condemning St. John; he certainly does not repeat Irenaeus's assertion that it was Domitian; and there is nothing to show that he did not think it was Nero.

 [snip]

What is the difference between the apocalypse and the revelation of Jesus?

[enoob57]

10 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

What is the difference between the apocalypse and the revelation of Jesus?

[snip]

APOCALYPSE, GENRE OF

Apocalypse was a literary genre that flourished in the period between the OT and NT (though apocalpytic visions of the future can be found in the OT as well as the NT). When read aloud an apocalypse held ancient listeners spellbound with special effects and promise of better days ahead. Visions of heaven and the future, featuring extraordinary creatures and events, focused attention on a whole new world. Natural catastrophes ravaging the earth portrayed God's final judgment on the evil in the world. Cosmic fireworks ushering in the new age suggested how revolutionary God's decisive triumph would be. These previews of God's will being "done on earth as it is in heaven" drew the attention of hearers away from the crises of everyday life. They caught glimpses of another time and another world where, devoid of the vice of the present global order, the virtue of God's universal order prevailed.
But today's readers are often puzzled and frustrated by this genre. The unexpected imagery and out-of-this-world experiences seem bizarre and out of sync with most of Scripture. Taking this literature at face value leaves many readers scrambling to determine "what will happen when," thus missing the intent of the apocalyptic message. Yet apocalypticism, the perspective that informs apocalyptic literature, is in some ways very modern: current science fiction and space fantasy in both literature and movies use graphic and disturbing images similar to those in the genre of apocalypse.
Characteristics. Apocalypse as a genre is exceptional for its underlying feeling of hopelessness: evil seems to have the upper hand. The conclusion is that things will definitely get worse before they get better. Yet glimpses of heaven and the future make it clear that God is on the throne and in control. And those glimpses reveal how totally opposite are our world and God's. Fortunately, God will soon start the processes to make our world like his world. But the predicament is so critical that God himself must visit this earth again. The only solution is catastrophic judgment against all forms of evil and the establishment of a completely new order that will last forever.
        Taking its name from the Greek word for "revelation" (apokalupsis), apocalypse is the genre primarily identified with the book of *Daniel in the OT and the book of *Revelation in the NT. But it is difficult to set clear boundaries around the genre of apocalypse, because apocalypticism is a way of thinking that emerges in various contexts. Several passages in the OT employ apocalyptic content and technique (Isa 24-27; 56:1-66:24, Ezek 38-39, Joel 2:28-3:21, Zech 1-6 and 12-14), suggesting that a shift from prophecy to apocalyptic was underway toward the close of the OT.
The majority of extant apocalypses were written after the OT period. They are included in the group of writings now known as the Jewish pseudepigrapha. 1 and 2 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 and 3 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Abraham-all apparently written between the  third century B.C. and the  second century A.D.-are representative of Jewish apocalyptic. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, fragments of 1 Enoch have survived; and in some of the literature of the Qumran sect, apocalyptic influence is prominent. During the first few centuries of the church apocalyptic fervor continued, resulting in a variety of Christian apocalypses.
         In the NT, in addition to the book of Revelation, apocalypticism is especially evident in Jesus' Olivet discourse (Mark 13), in some portions of Paul's letters (1 Thess 4:13-5:11; 2 Thess 2:1-12), and in 2 Peter 3:1-13. Early Christianity had numerous similarities with the apocalyptic movement in Judaism.
Though apocalypse may be considered a subgenre of prophecy, the two literary styles are sufficiently different to merit calling them separate genres. Prophecy speaks to those who have backslidden and begs them to repent; apocalyptic speaks to the faithful and urges them to persevere. Prophecy announces God's judgment of sin on a local scale using natural means; apocalyptic announces a coming cataclysm when the whole earth will be destroyed. Prophecy records its message in poetry; apocalyptic in narrative accounts of visions and heavenly journeys full of mystery. Prophecy promises restoration and future blessing; apocalyptic an unexpected divine visitation that will result in a new heaven and new earth.
(from Dictionary of Biblical Imagery © 1998 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA. All rights reserved.)
[snip]

Edited July 30, 2018 by enoob57

[Still Alive]

12 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

[snip]

APOCALYPSE, GENRE OF

Apocalypse was a literary genre that flourished in the period between the OT and NT (though apocalpytic visions of the future can be found in the OT as well as the NT). When read aloud an apocalypse held ancient listeners spellbound with special effects and promise of better days ahead. Visions of heaven and the future, featuring extraordinary creatures and events, focused attention on a whole new world. Natural catastrophes ravaging the earth portrayed God's final judgment on the evil in the world. Cosmic fireworks ushering in the new age suggested how revolutionary God's decisive triumph would be. These previews of God's will being "done on earth as it is in heaven" drew the attention of hearers away from the crises of everyday life. They caught glimpses of another time and another world where, devoid of the vice of the present global order, the virtue of God's universal order prevailed.
But today's readers are often puzzled and frustrated by this genre. The unexpected imagery and out-of-this-world experiences seem bizarre and out of sync with most of Scripture. Taking this literature at face value leaves many readers scrambling to determine "what will happen when," thus missing the intent of the apocalyptic message. Yet apocalypticism, the perspective that informs apocalyptic literature, is in some ways very modern: current science fiction and space fantasy in both literature and movies use graphic and disturbing images similar to those in the genre of apocalypse.
Characteristics. Apocalypse as a genre is exceptional for its underlying feeling of hopelessness: evil seems to have the upper hand. The conclusion is that things will definitely get worse before they get better. Yet glimpses of heaven and the future make it clear that God is on the throne and in control. And those glimpses reveal how totally opposite are our world and God's. Fortunately, God will soon start the processes to make our world like his world. But the predicament is so critical that God himself must visit this earth again. The only solution is catastrophic judgment against all forms of evil and the establishment of a completely new order that will last forever.
        Taking its name from the Greek word for "revelation" (apokalupsis), apocalypse is the genre primarily identified with the book of *Daniel in the OT and the book of *Revelation in the NT. But it is difficult to set clear boundaries around the genre of apocalypse, because apocalypticism is a way of thinking that emerges in various contexts. Several passages in the OT employ apocalyptic content and technique (Isa 24-27; 56:1-66:24, Ezek 38-39, Joel 2:28-3:21, Zech 1-6 and 12-14), suggesting that a shift from prophecy to apocalyptic was underway toward the close of the OT.
The majority of extant apocalypses were written after the OT period. They are included in the group of writings now known as the Jewish pseudepigrapha. 1 and 2 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 and 3 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Abraham-all apparently written between the  third century B.C. and the  second century A.D.-are representative of Jewish apocalyptic. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, fragments of 1 Enoch have survived; and in some of the literature of the Qumran sect, apocalyptic influence is prominent. During the first few centuries of the church apocalyptic fervor continued, resulting in a variety of Christian apocalypses.
         In the NT, in addition to the book of Revelation, apocalypticism is especially evident in Jesus' Olivet discourse (Mark 13), in some portions of Paul's letters (1 Thess 4:13-5:11; 2 Thess 2:1-12), and in 2 Peter 3:1-13. Early Christianity had numerous similarities with the apocalyptic movement in Judaism.
Though apocalypse may be considered a subgenre of prophecy, the two literary styles are sufficiently different to merit calling them separate genres. Prophecy speaks to those who have backslidden and begs them to repent; apocalyptic speaks to the faithful and urges them to persevere. Prophecy announces God's judgment of sin on a local scale using natural means; apocalyptic announces a coming cataclysm when the whole earth will be destroyed. Prophecy records its message in poetry; apocalyptic in narrative accounts of visions and heavenly journeys full of mystery. Prophecy promises restoration and future blessing; apocalyptic an unexpected divine visitation that will result in a new heaven and new earth.
(from Dictionary of Biblical Imagery © 1998 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA. All rights reserved.)
[snip]

So, what, exactly is being argued about being written either in 69 or 96?

I understand the general understanding, but this discussion seems to be about a specific book or document.

[enoob57]

4 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

So, what, exactly is being argued about being written either in 69 or 96?

I understand the general understanding, but this discussion seems to be about a specific book or document.

This speaks directly to your question
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/jude/date-of-revelation/

[Still Alive]

17 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

This speaks directly to your question
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/jude/date-of-revelation/

My service blocks me from seeing that site. Bummer.

[Willie T]

19 hours ago, Still Alive said:

I've never met a preterist. Is this becoming a common or even large minority belief among people claiming to be Christian?

I've personally met only two in my entire 73 years of life, that I know of, anyway.