Martyrdom of Antipas

[Darfius]

I could give a litany of reasons preterism is wrong and dangerous, but my chosen argument this day shall be the martyrdom of Antipas.



The circumstances of Antipas' martyrdom are not the only awkward facts for preterists in this verse. What does the Lord mean when He says that Satan's throne exists in a certain locality (Pergamum)? The obvious suggestion is the Pergamon Altar, associated with the Temple of Zeus.

Though

The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. 35.


Much more plausible is that Antipas was martyred as a result of his refusal to pay homage to the imperial cult of Rome, which portrayed the emperors as divine. While all of the emperors since Augustus had claimed divinity (and he had posthumously honored his patron uncle Julius with godhood), Domitian was far more grandiose with his airs and demanded to be addressed as Lord and God, titles which of course Christians would have refused to use.

Unfortunately, the earliest, clearest account we have of Antipas' martyrdom is from Simeon Metaphrastes in the 10th century, but he appears to be quoting from a long, established tradition of Antipas' fate (assigning his death to the time of Domitian), referenced also by Andreas of Caesarea (6th century) and Tertullian (2nd century)!


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!

So since Antipas was clearly martyred in an empire wide persecution under Domitian, and the Lord Jesus provided this time text so we'd know that Revelation was written after 70 AD, why is anyone a preterist?

[One Bad Pig]

Classic case of picking and spinning the sources to support your thesis. 1853? Gonzalez, the worst and least scholarly history of Christianity I've had the displeasure of reading? Simon Metaphrastes, which you clearly use only because he happens to support your thesis on this particular point? Your argument is not nearly as persuasive as you imagine.

[Rushing Jaws]

Classic case of picking and spinning the sources to support your thesis. 1853? Gonzalez, the worst and least scholarly history of Christianity I've had the displeasure of reading? Simon Metaphrastes, which you clearly use only because he happens to support your thesis on this particular point? Your argument is not nearly as persuasive as you imagine.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0them.&f=false

[Darfius]

Classic case of picking and spinning the sources to support your thesis. 1853? Gonzalez, the worst and least scholarly history of Christianity I've had the displeasure of reading? Simon Metaphrastes, which you clearly use only because he happens to support your thesis on this particular point? Your argument is not nearly as persuasive as you imagine.

The point, which seems to have gone over your head, is that there is no contradictory tradition of Antipas dying under Nero. Nor does the evidence suggest it at all likely that he could have. My argument is as persuasive as the Spirit of God allows it to be.

[Darfius]

And we should care what you think why? Scripture says Nimrod existed, therefore he existed. You preterists need to stop putting yourselves in the place of God.

Scripture Verse:

Acts 19:35
NKJV - 35 And when the city clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: "Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus?

© Copyright Original Source

Also known as the stone of Cybele and likely the black stone encased in the Kaaba.

The book purports to be written by one author. If that author was a liar, the book is worthless. Nearly as worthless as your opinions and claim to be a Christian, when you disregard the word of God in favor of your own opinions and desires. Preterist. Ha.

[tabibito]

A span of 30 years (earliest to latest estimates) would not preclude a single author.

[xcav8tor]

I could give a litany of reasons preterism is wrong and dangerous, but my chosen argument this day shall be the martyrdom of Antipas.



So since Antipas was clearly martyred in an empire wide persecution under Domitian, and the Lord Jesus provided this time text so we'd know that Revelation was written after 70 AD, why is anyone a preterist?

Hi Darfius,

The martyrdom of Antipas in 92 A.D. would certainly rule out John writing the Book of Revelations prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and would undermine the Preterist claim that it was written in Nero's day. If Nero is not the antichrist, then it seems clear that the Futurist perspective of a future Jewish temple and its defilement by a future antichrist would seem correct after all.

The following quote is from this website: http://www1.cbn.com/700club/seat-satan-ancient-pergamum

"Renner describes the method of execution suffered by Antipas.

'They would take the victim, place him inside the bull, and they would tie him in such a way that his head would go into the head of the bull. Then they would light a huge fire under the bull, and as the fire heated the bronze, the person inside of the bull would slowly begin to roast to death. As the victim would begin to moan and to cry out in pain, his cries would echo through the pipes in the head of the bull so it seemed to make the bull come alive.'

Even in the midst of the flames, the elderly bishop Antipas died praying for his church. THE YEAR WAS AD 92.

A few years later, the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation, mentioning the death of Antipas in Pergamum. Today, all that's left there is the foundation; the Altar of Zeus is more than a thousand miles away."

All Preterist views are dependent on a 65 A.D. date for the writing of the book of Revelation in order to interpret its prophecies as having been fulfilled by the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem, yet John couldn't have written of Antipas' death in the past tense 30 years before he died. The only way I can see Preterists salvaging their perspective is if they can provide documentation to prove Antipas died prior to 92 A.D.

[Littlejoe]

Hi Darfius,

The martyrdom of Antipas in 92 A.D. would certainly rule out John writing the Book of Revelations prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and would undermine the Preterist claim that it was written in Nero's day. If Nero is not the antichrist, then it seems clear that the Futurist perspective of a future Jewish temple and its defilement by a future antichrist would seem correct after all.

The following quote is from this website: http://www1.cbn.com/700club/seat-satan-ancient-pergamum

"Renner describes the method of execution suffered by Antipas.

'They would take the victim, place him inside the bull, and they would tie him in such a way that his head would go into the head of the bull. Then they would light a huge fire under the bull, and as the fire heated the bronze, the person inside of the bull would slowly begin to roast to death. As the victim would begin to moan and to cry out in pain, his cries would echo through the pipes in the head of the bull so it seemed to make the bull come alive.'

Even in the midst of the flames, the elderly bishop Antipas died praying for his church. THE YEAR WAS AD 92.

A few years later, the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation, mentioning the death of Antipas in Pergamum. Today, all that's left there is the foundation; the Altar of Zeus is more than a thousand miles away."

All Preterist views are dependent on a 65 A.D. date for the writing of the book of Revelation in order to interpret its prophecies as having been fulfilled by the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem, yet John couldn't have written of Antipas' death in the past tense 30 years before he died. The only way I can see Preterists salvaging their perspective is if they can provide documentation to prove Antipas died prior to 92 A.D.

According to this website of the Orthodox Church, the date was +/- 68 AD hardly a death nail to Preterism.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/04...ciple-of-st-jo

[JonathanL]

According to this website of the Orthodox Church, the date was +/- 68 AD

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/04...ciple-of-st-jo

Looking at the wikipedia (I know... ) article about Antipas of Pergamum it says according to Christian tradition he was ordained bishop during Domitians reign (81-96), but died during the reign of Nero (54-68).

So, either wikipedia is wrong (big surprise), or Christian tradition teaches that Antipas was ordained bishop after his own death.

Not really intending to add anything meaningful to the conversation with this, just thought it was a bit funny.

[Littlejoe]

Looking at the wikipedia (I know... ) article about Antipas of Pergamum it says according to Christian tradition he was ordained bishop during Domitians reign (81-96), but died during the reign of Nero (54-68).

So, either wikipedia is wrong (big surprise), or Christian tradition teaches that Antipas was ordained bishop after his own death.

Not really intending to add anything meaningful to the conversation with this, just thought it was a bit funny.

Yeah, I saw that too! I don't think both of those are possible...

I think they might have meant he was made a Saint during Domitians reign, (which would make more sense at least.)

[JonathanL]

Yeah, I saw that too! I don't think both of those are possible...

I think they might have meant he was mad a Saint during Domitians reign, (which would make more sense at least.)

I'm more inclined to believe who ever edited the article just researched/looked for two different accounts/traditions and haphazardly cobbled them together without bothering to check if they were in harmony with each other.

[xcav8tor]

According to this website of the Orthodox Church, the date was +/- 68 AD hardly a death nail to Preterism.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/04...ciple-of-st-jo

Hi Littlejoe,

According to this guy, Alaharasan, V. Antony J. (2009). From Patmos to Paradise : John's vision of heaven. New York: Paulist Press. p. 40. ISBN 9780809145898, page 40:

"Faced with the errors of Balaam, the heathen prophet of the Old Testament, and the Nicolations, who sought to undercut true faith, the Christians were asked to emulate the courageous, faithful witness of Antipas. According to Christian tradition, St. John ordained Antipas as bishop of Pergamum during the reign of the Roman emperor, Domitian. The traditional account reports that Antipas was martyred in 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar used for casting out demons by the local population."

So he also agrees with Renner from the CBN link I shared.

As Chrawus points out, Wikidedia is no help, having Antipas ordained after his own death.

According to the Orthodox Church source you offered, he died in 68, but according to this Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America site (https://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints?contentid=15), Antipas died:

"Saint Antipas was a contemporary of the holy Apostles, by whom he was made Bishop of Pergamum. He contested during the reign of Domitian, when he was cast, as it is said, into a bronze bull that had been heated exceedingly.

[Darfius]

The Orthodox are as opposed to futurism as the Catholics, because it undermines their power. They provided no evidence for a 60's AD date. And "ordination" (as a saint) didn't exist in the 1st century, so your special pleading is showing.

[DesertBerean]

The Orthodox are as opposed to futurism as the Catholics, because it undermines their power. They provided no evidence for a 60's AD date. And "ordination" (as a saint) didn't exist in the 1st century, so your special pleading is showing.

😳 I think you have some posts garbled together...ordination and sainthood are separate processes.

[Darfius]

😳 I think you have some posts garbled together...ordination and sainthood are separate processes.

Nope, you can be ordained a saint, or a lawyer or a doctor or anything really. The point, which you didn't bother responding to, presumably because you couldn't, is that no one was being declared a saint in the 1st century, so the only ordination that could have been meant in the traditions was Antipas being made overseer of Pergamum by John. See if you can find any more hairs to split.