An early date for Revelation Fits: Pre-AD70, not 90s. Here is why...

The fact that it is absent works against Preterism.
Here is the purpose of the Gospel of John:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John writes to the world in general presenting Christ as the Son of God, and that salvation is through Him and Him alone. Its entire gospel is a message of salvation to all the world.
The other three gospels are known as the synoptics, "seeing together," having roughly the same events recorded and many other similarities.
The fact that John is so different gives credence to the much later date. He wrote, not only with a different purpose, but also to add supplemental information that the other gospels didn't have. His was not a repeat of the other gospels. He already had those. Matthew was one of the first books to be written (ca. 50 A.D.) or at least 40 years before John's gospel was written and more than 45 before Revelation was written. The other two gospels were probably written close to 65 A.D. That is still a 30 year difference. He knew what was in these books. The Olivet discourse didn't need repeating. Thus the uniqueness of the Gospel of John.

 

No, my salvation depends on the finished work of Jesus Christ and my faith in the same. You have elevated your pet doctrines too highly imo. Are you trying to say that salvation is not through the Lord Jesus Christ now, by grace thru faith? When I got saved, it did not depend upon whether I believed about the tulip, nor what I believed about A.D. 70. Can't you see that? How is evangelism different in your view? Maybe I am missing something.

 

I believe the Book of Revelation sets forth eternal truths concerning the conflict between good and evil and that the imagery of the book has no particular relation to any historical events. This view is generally called the "idealist" view.

I believe that the purpose of the book is two fold, to comfort Christian who are undergoing persecution and, more importantly, to show the ultimate triumph of God over His enemies. That part of the Olivet Discourse dealing with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem simply does not show the ultimate triumph of God over His enemies; neither does the history of 70 AD and the persecution of the Saints since then.

The early years of the Church were ones of continual, sometimes intense, persecution. However, history shows the judgment of God on the persecutors of the early Church in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the demise of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD. If Revelation was written for the comfort of those undergoing intense persecution, the evidence of history is that God’s judgment is sure. However, the final destruction of Satan, the adversary, has not yet occurred but must come to pass [Revelation 1:1], and by God’s timetable, not ours, must shortly come to pass. The mandatory nature of this phrase cannot be explained away and there is no need to. The attitude of the expectancy of the things revealed is reinforced in Revelation 1:3, for the time [is] at hand.

 

Majority consensus? Really?

 

I guess I did, but you did say this:

"These two issues are very important. They have to do with salvation and the nature of the Kingdom of God. To get these wrong can severely effect our evangelism."

How does a.d. 70 and what you believe affect salvation and your evangelsim?

Like I said, when I got saved, the people that witnessed and preached to me believed nothing like you do and that did not stop me from getting saved. I am not getting why you think it matters so much.