So you hold what Irenaeus said to be on equal with the Scriptures, how do you know that Irenaeus knew what he was talking about. How do you know he didn't misquote Pollycarp or add to what Pollycarp said, How do you not know he was senile when he wrote what he said. How do you not know that Pollycarp hasn't been mistranslated or misquoted down the line. To boldly say that the preterist theology is absolutely incorrect because of what some one has said Irenaeus said is bad foundational theology. Most people would say Revelation was written post AD 70 because their study Bible says so, well I've got several study Bibles and they sure don't agree on every thing especially in the commentary part.A lot of them will say in their initial statement that a majority of theologians believe that Revelation was written post AD 70 but if you read on most of them will also say that their is a minority of theologians that believe and hold that Revelation was written pre AD 70. But either way if one has to build their theology on commentaries and what some one else says, it is standing on a pretty shaky foundation.
Interesting . . .
Sometimes it seem like the vast bulk of REPLACEMENTARIANS
—majored in minors;
—minored in majors;
—got Phd’s in obtuseness, absurdity or irrationality as a life philosophy
etc. etc. etc.
OF COURSE MY THEOLOGY COMES FROM SCRIPTURE. PERIOD.
I believe the historical record about John’s authorship of Revelation is highly likely to be correct.
I realize that REPLACEMENTARIANS are as addicted to shucking and jiving and slipping and sliding all around facts, Scripture and history to justify their absurd notions about eschatology.
Interesting link to Irenaeus. He is a very good source for life in the EArly Church