My professor of Ancient history(just Roman-Greek history really) had a few lessons about the bible, explaining in what context the bible was written in.

You can try Wikipedia, but that's not a good source anyway.

Stickball is actually right.  Revelations has been dated as early as Claudias and as Late as Trajan.  Nero and Domitian are the two most widely believed deates... however Domitian is still the most widely believed.

For one, all of the External evidence points to Domitian.

When it comes from within the text, Nero didn't put Christians to death for not worshipping him... that didn't start until Domitian.  Basically they weren't persecuted for their religious beliefs until then, previously it was other reasons.  The writer of the book was banished because of his beliefs.

Additionaly the persecution was only in Rome, unlike the worldwide persecution needed  in revelations.  Which occured under Domitian.

Your teacher was just replacing his favorite theory over the more widely accepted one.  It's a fairly common thing for teachers to do... and Nero backers aren't that small of a minority.

Actually, the Nero theory is based upon the internal writing of the book of revelation while the other theories are based upon other things and my professor didn't believe in the Nero theory, he didn't force us to believe his opinion. That goes against everything my education stands for actually.

It doesn't really change all that much anyway, the apocalypse is a text written in reaction to what was happening in the Roman empire. People see what they want to see.

Yes, Nero also has internal writing proofs... however they aren't as strong as Domitian which also has external proofs backing it up.

Even Claudis has internal writing proofs.  Pretty much every theory that isn't Domitian is based soley on internal proofs.  Domitian is the most believed however because it has both, and the strongest of both.

Nero honestly is mostly popular because Nero is a bigger name.  Even historians often tend to get carried away with the big names of history.

I'd say Domitian is more important to real historians. Nero is just more popular because he was crazy as hell, even for Roman emperor standards.

But we can go on and on about this, it's not really my main point. I've heard both theories in class and I chose to believe the one that sounded more plausible to me.

Ah, actually most historians don't forget their prehistorian days.

For example, you think Lincoln was a horrible president.  Most historians would think Lincoln was an AMAZING president.

FDR, another president that's an example, the New Deal seems to have failed historial economics wise, and his many backdoor dealings may have been the shadiest a president has ever committed, yet you can bet most historians still love him.

Can you care to elaborate how Wicca is a cult? 

Oh and from your description, the group you stumbled was a derivative branch of Wicca in which they praise Cernunnos, the god of stags, earth and the hunt.

But really, I just want you to elaborate on how is it a cult, as it's a recognized worldwide religion based on ancient celtic rituals and beliefs, which has over 50 million believers and followers all around the world. I'm one of them. 

Even the most generous estimates put the number of Wiccans in the 1-5 million followers range. I searched high and low and found nothing that even closely resembled 50 milion. If you mean to put them in the same group with every other neopagan religion in the world, then perhaps the number would be higher.

Considering their name derives from the word "witch cult" and the word witchcraft seems to be popular within the group, I can only venture to guess that the people believe in something that the rest of the world does not. While each religion has their belief in various dieties and whatnot, the Wicca practices are what concern me most. It isn't often that you come across a group of people believing in realworld magicks and dancing around circles in the woods. I wouldn't knock any religion for their beliefs, but when one straight up says they believe in magic, I cannot ask for anything more but for them to prove it.

As for the very meaning of the word cult- it refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange. Perhaps magic was believed more in the middle ages, but in today's society you would be hard pressed to find many people (apart from those already associated with the group) to openly state they believe in magic.

Witch cults and Wicca are two different things, even though the two derive from the same stem. 

While witch cults practice what you called real world magicks, Wicca believe more in the healing powers of nature, meditation ans self-consciouness. In this aspect we're no different from budhism and other forms of meditation. And while some of the things we do, are consider the be "magickal", they closely resemble homeopathy techniques more than some otherworldy non-sensical thing. 

We do believe in different deities, which stem from beliefs that came from pagan times, and yes we do have rituals that involve chanting and dancing, but they're no different than what most religions do as well.