[CynicalBear]

>> the point that I really want to make, and that is if you can’t argue your premillennialism view point outside of quoteing church fathers you have already failed in your theology or your search for the truth.<<

The theology isn’t based on the quotes of church fathers. In this case I am using Irenaeus statement of when Revelation was written to prove that John’s prophecy was written after 70AD which destroys Preterist interpretation of Revelation.

[Quix]

The theology isn’t based on the quotes of church fathers. In this case I am using Irenaeus statement of when Revelation was written to prove that John’s prophecy was written after 70AD which destroys Preterist interpretation of Revelation.

---

INDEED.

[ReformedBeckite]

In this case I am using Irenaeus statement of when Revelation was written to prove that John’s prophecy was written after 70AD which destroys Preterist interpretation of Revelation.

Two sentences from Irenaeus that you quote is not going to convince me that Revelation was written after AD70, especially when you boldly state it is a fact that Revelation was written after AD 70, when in fact you really don't know but are going on what you have read from some premill book that you take as the gospel, that you put up there on the same level with the Bible maybe your putting it up their on a higher pedestal then the Bible.

[topcat54]

The theology isn’t based on the quotes of church fathers. In this case I am using Irenaeus statement of when Revelation was written to prove that John’s prophecy was written after 70AD which destroys Preterist interpretation of Revelation.

But it's not proof. It's an opinion. You don't seem to understand that by trotting out Irenaeus to try an prove something you cannot prove; the exact date of Revelation.