Do you not know that there is only one root source for the 96 AD dating of Revelation? That source comes from triple hearsay evidence. The source was a second century French clergyman, Irenaeus, who in his writings was recalling a conversation he had with Polycarp some 35 years earlier. Polycarp was thought to have known John. John may have told Polycarp that he was released by Domitian or perhaps Irenaeus misunderstand or recalled incorrectly. Regardless, we have a much more reliable source, the Syrian version of the Apocalypse which states in the title that John was vanquished to Patmos by the Emperor Nero. Besides all of this, everything that happens in Revelation is chronicled by Josephus. Josephus basically explains all the prophetic symbols that John employed without even realizing he was doing it.
I think you mean Dan 9, but good. I hate gaps when none is taught. The Word was not written to confuse us or to make us play mental gymnastics to figure things out.
Final consummation?? Of Daniel 9?? Consume by fire? How do you think Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed? Daniel was shown the end of the temple which was to be built. Nothing was told to him about a 3rd temple. Heck, there wasn't even a second temple yet. Why would Daniel be told how the third temple would be destroyed if he wasn't told about the end of the 2nd?
I think you mean Dan 9, but good. I hate gaps when none is taught. The Word was not written to confuse us or to make us play mental gymnastics to figure things out.
Final consummation?? Of Daniel 9?? Consume by fire? How do you think Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed? Daniel was shown the end of the temple which was to be built. Nothing was told to him about a 3rd temple. Heck, there wasn't even a second temple yet. Why would Daniel be told how the third temple would be destroyed if he wasn't told about the end of the 2nd?
The manner in which you've characterized Iraneus completely undermines your argument but I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of the dating of books especially as I stated that is only one of the weaknesses to the position that revelation took place in AD 70.
Claiming the resurrection of the dead already happened is the exact heresy Paul wrote to Timothy about in both first and second Timothy. If the resurrection of the dead already happened we are without hope. Jesus' return is immanent not a thing of the past and not a "spiritual" reality for the afterlife.