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

  • #16
    *.....aren't you the one who was going on and on about the Great Delusion having begun? ....*
    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
      *.....aren't you the one who was going on and on about the Great Delusion having begun? ....*
      Haha, at least you follow orders well. Yes, I'm the one who warned you all of what is coming and what is already here. You're welcome.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Darfius View Post
        Haha, at least you follow orders well. Yes, I'm the one who warned you all of what is coming and what is already here. You're welcome.
        Dunno what you mean about following orders...but I find it rather interesting you are so stuck on the dates of this particular issue.

        But as I think about it, I recall that I didn't follow your entire thread about the delusion you were concerned about...
        Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
          Dunno what you mean about following orders...but I find it rather interesting you are so stuck on the dates of this particular issue.

          But as I think about it, I recall that I didn't follow your entire thread about the delusion you were concerned about...
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
            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.
            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.

            Originally posted by Acts 9:13
            Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem.
            Originally posted by Romans 15:25,26
            But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem.
            Originally posted by 2 Corinthians 1:1
            Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:
            We know J6 wasn’t peaceful because they didn’t set the building on fire.

            Comment


            • #21
              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!
              Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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
                            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


                            • #29
                              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, 11:21 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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

                                Comment

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