Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Martyrdom of Antipas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Sources have been given attesting to his death in the 90's under Domitian. What are the sources for the claim that he died under Nero in the 60's? It makes no sense to toss our hands up in the air as if this is up for debate when there is actually no debate.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Darfius View Post
      Sources have been given attesting to his death in the 90's under Domitian. What are the sources for the claim that he died under Nero in the 60's? It makes no sense to toss our hands up in the air as if this is up for debate when there is actually no debate.
      The problem is your "sources" is actually only one source, and that one source comes 800+ years after the fact.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        The problem is your "sources" is actually only one source, and that one source comes 800+ years after the fact.
        The other problem is that he almost certainly thinks that 99% of what that source has written is fiction, since he is manifestly hostile to the cult of the saints. That one point supports his contention, however, so he'll run with it.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
          The problem is your "sources" is actually only one source, and that one source comes 800+ years after the fact.
          Incorrect. I cited two other sources who clearly allude to the same tradition.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
            Incorrect. I cited two other sources who clearly allude to the same tradition.
            Please post the exact quotes of what your other two sources said about Antipas, and where the quotes can be found. Just saying they mention him or reference him doesn't cut it.
            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Darfius View Post
              Incorrect. I cited two other sources who clearly allude to the same tradition.
              Except they don't. The entirety of Andrew of Caesarea's commentary on Antipas (found in his commentary on Revelation) is "Antipas, whose name had become known as the bravest martyr in Pergamum, whose martyrdom I hâve read, the Evangelist now mentioned to point to both their patience and the cruelty of those who had been led astray." Andrew gives absolutely no details whatsoever that could be used to match it up with what Symeon writes.

              As for Tertullian, let's examine what you quoted from him:
              Originally posted by Darfius View Post
              From Scorpiace, Chapter 12:
              Also to the angel of the church in Pergamus (mention was made) of Antipas, Revelation 2:13 the very faithful martyr, who was slain where Satan dwells. Also to the angel of the church in Philadelphia Revelation 3:10 (it was signified) that he who had not denied the name of the Lord was delivered from the last trial.


              It is said that Tertullian's allusion does not contain "independent information", but the claim that Antipas was "delivered from the last trial" indicates a clear knowledge of the circumstances cited by Metaphrastes, that Antipas was delivered from the pains of his execution (being roasted to death in a metal bull) so much that he was able to pray and give thanksgiving to the last, finally simply going to sleep...hardly the case if he were suffering from the unimaginable pain of such an execution!
              Your argument that Antipas being "delivered from the last trial" indicates clear knowledge of what Metaphrastes wrote about is already quite speculative and a stretch, but even that is ruined by the fact you're misreading what Tertullian wrote. The "delivered from the last trial" isn't even being used to refer to Antipas. It certainly wasn't in the original Revelation, as Revelation 3:10 is completely unrelated to the mention of Antipas. But even if we ignore the original context of Revelation, the fact Tertullian clearly switches which church he's referring to shows he's also not referring to Antipas with that "delivered from the last trial."

              This is made even more obvious if we examine the fuller context:
              John, in fact, exhorts us to lay down our lives even for our brethren, 1 John 3:16 affirming that there is no fear in love: For perfect love casts out fear, since fear has punishment; and he who fears is not perfect in love. 1 John 4:18 What fear would it be better to understand (as here meant), than that which gives rise to denial? What love does he assert to be perfect, but that which puts fear to flight, and gives courage to confess? What penalty will he appoint as the punishment of fear, but that which he who denies is about to pay, who has to be slain, body and soul, in hell? And if he teaches that we must die for the brethren, how much more for the Lord, — he being sufficiently prepared, by his own Revelation too, for giving such advice! For indeed the Spirit had sent the injunction to the angel of the church in Smyrna: Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried ten days. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life. Revelation 2:10 Also to the angel of the church in Pergamus (mention was made) of Antipas, Revelation 2:13 the very faithful martyr, who was slain where Satan dwells. Also to the angel of the church in Philadelphia Revelation 3:10 (it was signified) that he who had not denied the name of the Lord was delivered from the last trial. Then to every conqueror the Spirit promises now the tree of life, and exemption from the second death.

              Tertullian is simply rattling off examples of biblical passages that allude to his point, with the Antipas reference being clearly distinct from what comes immediately before and immediately afterwards. The "he who had not denied the name of the Lord was delivered from the last trial" is being used as a more general statement and is not a specific reference to Antipas.
              Last edited by Terraceth; 04-14-2019, 10:47 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                Except they don't. The entirety of Andrew of Caesarea's commentary on Antipas (found in his commentary on Revelation) is "Antipas, whose name had become known as the bravest martyr in Pergamum, whose martyrdom I hâve read, the Evangelist now mentioned to point to both their patience and the cruelty of those who had been led astray." Andrew gives absolutely no details whatsoever that could be used to match it up with what Symeon writes.

                As for Tertullian, let's examine what you quoted from him:

                Your argument that Antipas being "delivered from the last trial" indicates clear knowledge of what Metaphrastes wrote about is already quite speculative and a stretch, but even that is ruined by the fact you're misreading what Tertullian wrote. The "delivered from the last trial" isn't even being used to refer to Antipas. It certainly wasn't in the original Revelation, as Revelation 3:10 is completely unrelated to the mention of Antipas. But even if we ignore the original context of Revelation, the fact Tertullian clearly switches which church he's referring to shows he's also not referring to Antipas with that "delivered from the last trial."

                This is made even more obvious if we examine the fuller context:
                John, in fact, exhorts us to lay down our lives even for our brethren, 1 John 3:16 affirming that there is no fear in love: For perfect love casts out fear, since fear has punishment; and he who fears is not perfect in love. 1 John 4:18 What fear would it be better to understand (as here meant), than that which gives rise to denial? What love does he assert to be perfect, but that which puts fear to flight, and gives courage to confess? What penalty will he appoint as the punishment of fear, but that which he who denies is about to pay, who has to be slain, body and soul, in hell? And if he teaches that we must die for the brethren, how much more for the Lord, — he being sufficiently prepared, by his own Revelation too, for giving such advice! For indeed the Spirit had sent the injunction to the angel of the church in Smyrna: Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried ten days. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life. Revelation 2:10 Also to the angel of the church in Pergamus (mention was made) of Antipas, Revelation 2:13 the very faithful martyr, who was slain where Satan dwells. Also to the angel of the church in Philadelphia Revelation 3:10 (it was signified) that he who had not denied the name of the Lord was delivered from the last trial. Then to every conqueror the Spirit promises now the tree of life, and exemption from the second death.

                Tertullian is simply rattling off examples of biblical passages that allude to his point, with the Antipas reference being clearly distinct from what comes immediately before and immediately afterwards. The "he who had not denied the name of the Lord was delivered from the last trial" is being used as a more general statement and is not a specific reference to Antipas.
                Great info Terraceth! Looks to me like this is much to do about nothing...
                "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                  I told you to keep splitting hairs and you did, but maybe you were gunna keep doing that anyway. I'm "stuck" on the fact that Revelation obviously deals with future events, rather than being a book written for a small group of people for a specific time thousands of years ago. The delusion I'm concerned about is reality being altered around us, which granted probably doesn't matter to someone who claims to be a Christian while not getting "stuck" on why and when the Bible was written and knowing and doing what it says.
                  Since you insist history is being distorted, I find your obsession with historical details strange since you have no proof they are being altered - what proof can YOU show of Antipas is not corrupt?

                  But I will offer a couple of scriptures I was reminded of recently,

                  2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

                  And

                  Phil. 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death

                  Rather than focusing on something about a plot to trick and deceive believers... focus on the power of the power of Christ and his resurrection. Since even death could not hold Christ, pursue him and not speculation that leads away from such single minded worship and pursuit.
                  Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Revelation was written before 70 A.D., but there are still good arguments for why preterism is wrong. For example, Matthew 24 says that the angels with trumpets are unleashed AFTER Jerusalem falls. Preterism tries to somehow make the angels with trumpets all about the destruction of Jerusalem.

                    Matthew 24:29-31

                    29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


                    This timeline makes it clear that the destruction of Jerusalem lines up (roughly) with the sixth seal, and that all subsequent events in Revelation are talking about something other than the destruction of Jerusalem.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                      Revelation was written before 70 A.D., but there are still good arguments for why preterism is wrong. For example, Matthew 24 says that the angels with trumpets are unleashed AFTER Jerusalem falls. Preterism tries to somehow make the angels with trumpets all about the destruction of Jerusalem.

                      Matthew 24:29-31

                      29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


                      This timeline makes it clear that the destruction of Jerusalem lines up (roughly) with the sixth seal, and that all subsequent events in Revelation are talking about something other than the destruction of Jerusalem.
                      That doesn't show Partial Preterism wrong at all... The covenant wasn't just with Jerusalem, it was with the Nation of Israel. Jerusalem and the Temple (although huge events no doubt) weren't the only thing. God divorced Israel for her continued unfaithfulness.
                      Last edited by Littlejoe; 04-17-2019, 08:36 AM.
                      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        First of all, God doesn't divorce Israel. That is terminology never used in the New Testament. Instead, he cuts branches off of Israel. (Romans 11:17-21).

                        Second, and more importantly, preterism teaches that the 3.5-year period in Revelation is about the Jewish War. That teaching is false, because the 3.5 years do not even start until the war is concluded. It probably just refers to an indeterminate period of time ("a time, times, and half a time").

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          First of all, God doesn't divorce Israel. That is terminology never used in the New Testament. Instead, he cuts branches off of Israel. (Romans 11:17-21).
                          yeah, and the terminology "Trinity" is never used either, doesn't make it untrue. God began divorce proceedings in the OT. Revelation/Matt 24 is the conclusion.


                          Second, and more importantly, preterism teaches that the 3.5-year period in Revelation is about the Jewish War. That teaching is false, because the 3.5 years do not even start until the war is concluded. It probably just refers to an indeterminate period of time ("a time, times, and half a time").
                          I'm not sure what your point is here. The Jewish war was 7 years long, not 3.5. The Abomination of Desolation happened about 3.5 years in. According to "The Wars of the Jews 6.6.1"

                          AND now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy..


                          Roman ensigns were symbolic images of Caesar and Rome, (the beast of Revelation)

                          https://textcritical.net/work/the-wa...the-jews/6/6/1


                          Preterism is alive and well IMO.
                          Last edited by Littlejoe; 04-17-2019, 04:43 PM.
                          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by LittleJoe
                            I'm not sure what your point is here. The Jewish war was 7 years long, not 3.5. The Abomination of Desolation happened about 3.5 years in.
                            It's hard to know what your actual position is, without your expounding a general summary of what each chapter of Revelation means. All the preterists that I've talked to allege that the entire book is about the siege of Jerusalem — which you admit is not the case. Yet you still claim to take a preterist view of Revelation.

                            I don't agree whatsoever that Jesus or God divorces Israel, or that the Bible uses any language similar to that. The Bible, notably Revelation 7, teaches that people of every nation and tongue are actually sealed as part of Israel. It wouldn't make any sense to divorce Israel. Regardless, I don't see how this divorce issue would be critical to understanding the book one way or the other.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                              All the preterists that I've talked to allege that the entire book is about the siege of Jerusalem — which you admit is not the case. Yet you still claim to take a preterist view of Revelation.
                              Did they misspeak/not know Preterism well, or did you just misunderstand?

                              The Jewish war encompassed all of Israel, not just Jerusalem and the Temple. It ended at Masada. It was 7+ years long.

                              I don't agree whatsoever that Jesus or God divorces Israel, or that the Bible uses any language similar to that. The Bible, notably Revelation 7, teaches that people of every nation and tongue are actually sealed as part of Israel. It wouldn't make any sense to divorce Israel.
                              Jeremiah 3:8:
                              8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.


                              Yes, the Marriage to the Lamb only happens because Jesus died allowing God to remarry his bride...and it includes not National Israel, but spiritual Israel.

                              Isaiah 50:1:
                              1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.


                              Honestly, this is a pretty well known theme.

                              Regardless, I don't see how this divorce issue would be critical to understanding the book one way or the other.
                              Of course you don't because futurist use a pretty literal hermenuetic, but, to Preterists, the whole book of Revelation is about the divorce from National Israel, and marriage to Spiritual Israel (the Church) Why do you think we're called the Bride of Christ? If God did not divorce Israel, then die to annul it, then his marriage to the Church would be adulterous.
                              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by LittleJoe
                                Did they misspeak/not know Preterism well, or did you just misunderstand?

                                The Jewish war encompassed all of Israel, not just Jerusalem and the Temple. It ended at Masada. It was 7+ years long.
                                No, I think it's just that most people can recognize instinctively that the mentions of a time, times, and half a time as described in Revelation 11, 12, and 13 don't have anything to do with Masada. Nor is there any logical reason why the millennium would start at the end of Masada.


                                Yes, the Marriage to the Lamb only happens because Jesus died allowing God to remarry his bride...and it includes not National Israel, but spiritual Israel.
                                . . . .
                                [T]he whole book of Revelation is about the divorce from National Israel, and marriage to Spiritual Israel (the Church) Why do you think we're called the Bride of Christ? If God did not divorce Israel, then die to annul it, then his marriage to the Church would be adulterous.
                                One, there is no indication that God ever remarried Israel after the Assyrian/Babylonian captivity, so there could be no possible adultery. Two, remarrying the same woman that you previously divorced is not considered adultery. Your idea that "spiritual Israel" is somehow different from national Israel is completely unjustified.

                                Hosea 2:19-20

                                19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever;
                                yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness,
                                and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
                                20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness:
                                and thou shalt know the Lord.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X