Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85

Thread: Martyrdom of Antipas

  1. #21
    42nd Mojave Year DesertBerean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Barstow, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    6,455
    Amen (Given)
    5492
    Amen (Received)
    2143
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskazimm View Post
    This is but a small sampling of verses calling believers saints - the first Acts 9:13 being from the very early years of the church; a Logos search pulls up over 50 more. It seems that quite a few times believers were declared saints in the 1st century.
    Very true!

  2. #22
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    690
    Amen (Given)
    62
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskazimm View Post
    This is but a small sampling of verses calling believers saints - the first Acts 9:13 being from the very early years of the church; a Logos search pulls up over 50 more. It seems that quite a few times believers were declared saints in the 1st century.
    Oh, no, you misunderstood me. That can happen when you don't know what you're talking about.


    G40
    ἅγιος
    hagios
    hag'-ee-os
    From ἅγος hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.


    H2282
    חָג חַג
    chag châg
    khag, khawg
    A festival, or a victim therefor: - (solemn) feast (day), sacrifice, solemnity.


    The New Testament word "saint" was used for those who were members of the "congregation" or "solemn assembly", to use Old Testament parlance. It was used for those who had sanctified themselves to worship God as He saw fit. The word was later hijacked by the pagan synthesizing Catholics as a word for their pagan practice of apotheosis. People were not yet being declared "saints" (demigods) in the 1st century.

  3. #23
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,938
    Amen (Given)
    5237
    Amen (Received)
    3537
    Quote Originally Posted by Darfius View Post
    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.
    Who are you even arguing with here? I don't see anyone in this thread claiming that ordination to sainthood existed in the 1st century.

  4. #24
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    690
    Amen (Given)
    62
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlejoe View Post
    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.)
    Clear things up for you, Chrawnus?

  5. #25
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,938
    Amen (Given)
    5237
    Amen (Received)
    3537
    Quote Originally Posted by Darfius View Post
    Clear things up for you, Chrawnus?
    Yes, thank you.

    I'll let LJ clarify, but I'm pretty sure he just made a blunder and actually meant to wrote bishop or overseer there, not saint.

  6. #26
    Professor and Chaplain Littlejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,329
    Amen (Given)
    1805
    Amen (Received)
    1841
    Quote Originally Posted by xcav8tor View Post
    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. The Evangelist John writes of him in the Book of Revelation, and says (as it were from the mouth of Christ, Who says to the Angel [that is, the Bishop] of the Church of Pergamum): "I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is; and thou holdest fast My Name, and hast not denied My Faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful Martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth" (Rev. 2:13). The faithful pray to this Saint for ailments of the teeth."

    So who is right? My 3 sources or yours? The traditional date for the writing of the Revelation is around 95 A.D. (Says, Irenaeus: “For that [the apocalyptic vision] was seen not a very long time since, but almost in our own day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign” and Domitian’s reign occurred during the years of A.D 81-96. The church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome also affirm that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign). The death of Antipas in 92 A.D. fits hand in glove with that estimate, but like most things, it appears there is always some room for doubt for those who need it.
    Hi xcav8tor,

    Surely you don't mean to get into a "dualing websites" type argument? Do you not think I couldn't find 3 sources as well? I mean, agumentum ad populum is a well known fallacy.

    Doing a bit more research into the matter shows several sites admitting that there's not much known, or no written records of Antipas.

    This link is to a paper written by Preterist Gary Demar of American Vision fame. On page 8 he cites Bruce W. Longenecker from his book (Bruce W. Longenecker, The Lost Letters of Pergamum: A Story from the New Testament World, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, [2003] 2016), 11.)
    “There must have been an intriguing series of events leading to Antipas’s punishing death. Those events, however, have been lost in the sands of time. We will never know who Antipas was or the episodes that provoked his martyrdom.”

    Gary's summation is thus: "The reason we don’t know is because there is no reliable historical account of who he was or how he died."

    So, it appears to me that your sources are all (re)citing a 10th century compiler of Church martyr stories (Simeon Metaphrastes) who accepted the traditional claims "uncritically".

    Meanwhile, an early sixth-century copy of a Syriac translation of the Bible (Not the Peshitta) States that Revelation was revealed to John during the Reign of Nero.
    The "Muratorian Fragment dating back to 170-190 A.D. states this is work of John was written during the reign of Nero.
    The "Monarchian Prologues" ca. 250-350 A.D. claims that Paul also wrote to these seven churches (possibly Romans which was a "circular letter," it went out to many addressees) following John's Book, thus, placing the book even before some of the other Pauline epistles.

    You're correct that the current majority position is that the date of Revelation was around 95 A.D., but that wasn't the case around the turn of the 20th century. The late date advocate William Milligan said in 1893 that "...recent scholarship has, with little exception, decided in favour of the earlier and not the later date." Tradition also says that Peter was crucified upside down, but there's also zero evidence other than tradition for that. Tradition for many centuries (and by most Catholics and Orthodox believers still today) said that Mary remained ever Virginal, and that Joseph never consummated the marriage. That Jesus "brothers and sisters" were from Joseph's earlier marriage. Do you believe that tradition as well?

    As to church fathers, Clement of Alexadria didn't mention a name, he used "tyrant". That could easily mean Nero as well as it could mean Domitian.
    Here's the actual quote:
    "the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit..."

    And though Jerome puts the date as during Domitian, he also says that during the final reign of Domitian, he instigated the biggest persecution of all, even greater than Nero's. So, even Jerome acknowledges there was immense persecution under Nero.

    The meaning/translation of Irenaeus' statement has argued for years (centuries?)
    We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

    Objections being: 1) it's not original to him but a quote from Polycarp., 2) Polycarp's original meaning referred to his remembering "that" sometime near the end of Domitian's reign there would be an antichrist. 3) It's not clear what Polycarp was referring to or what he actually means by "that was seen". Was it Revelation or the forementioned antichrist?
    "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

  7. #27
    Professor and Chaplain Littlejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,329
    Amen (Given)
    1805
    Amen (Received)
    1841
    Quote Originally Posted by Darfius View Post
    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.
    Well, since I'm not Orthodox or Catholic, I didn't realize there was no sainthood yet in the late 1st century. But, just because none are provided doesn't mean it's any more special pleading than your examples.
    "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

  8. #28
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,951
    Amen (Given)
    6130
    Amen (Received)
    11751
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlejoe View Post
    Well, since I'm not Orthodox or Catholic, I didn't realize there was no sainthood yet in the late 1st century. But, just because none are provided doesn't mean it's any more special pleading than your examples.
    Saints are not "ordained" in any case. Just about all the people considered saints pre-Constantine were killed for their faith. The canonization of those who did not die for their faith developed later.
    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

    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

  9. #29
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    35
    Amen (Given)
    25
    Amen (Received)
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlejoe View Post
    Hi xcav8tor,

    Surely you don't mean to get into a "dualing websites" type argument?
    Hi Littlejoe,

    You are correct. I was under no illusion that you could not find websites to counter my sources, and I agree that truth isn't decided by a majority anyway. I was merely trying to ask who can know for sure whose sources were reliable. I shouldn't have mentioned "my 3" at the time.

    I also agree that little was written about Antipas, but if he indeed was martyred in 92 AD, that does throw a wrench into the entire Preterist interpretation of Revelation. Unfortunately, it appears we cannot know for sure either way. Anyway, thanks for the additional info.

    There are many problems with the Preterist interpretation in my opinion, but I will not raise this objection in the future. The sources I quoted may be correct, but there is no use appealing to them when they are not air-tight.
    Last edited by xcav8tor; 04-13-2019 at 09:21 AM.

  10. Amen Littlejoe amen'd this post.
  11. #30
    Professor and Chaplain Littlejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,329
    Amen (Given)
    1805
    Amen (Received)
    1841
    Quote Originally Posted by xcav8tor View Post
    Hi Littlejoe,

    You are correct. I was under no illusion that you could not find websites to counter my sources, and I agree that truth isn't decided by a majority anyway. I was merely trying to ask who can know for sure whose sources were reliable. I shouldn't have mentioned "my 3" at the time.
    Ok good deal! I didn't really think so but, couldn't see any other way to read it...

    I also agree that little was written about Antipas, but if he indeed was martyred in 92 AD, that does throw a wrench into the entire Preterist interpretation of Revelation. Unfortunately, it appears we cannot know for sure either way. Anyway, thanks for the additional info.
    You're welcome! Yes, if it was shown to be 92 AD, that would pose quite a problem for Preterism. But, like I said originally, I don't think it's the death nail it appeared to be. I'm glad you agree.

    There are many problems with the Preterist interpretation in my opinion, but I will not raise this objection in the future. The sources I quoted may be correct, but there is no use appealing to them when they are not air-tight.
    I think they are FAR from air tight and would not use it. I was a futurist for ~27 years, a pre-tribber at that for most of it. I think futurism has many problems as well. So, here we are...
    "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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •