Martyrdom of Antipas

[Littlejoe]

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.

Well, I can see your problem...your interpreting Scripture "instinctively".
Masada was the final death nail in the Jewish War. It marked the end of Israel as a Nation and as God's "chosen people". That paved the way for the Church "whether Jew or Greek". I think that's a pretty important reason

Nor is there any logical reason why the millennium would start at the end of Masada.

What do you mean by "logical reason"? I haven't seen anywhere in Scripture that God's timing requires "logic"...at least logic we always understand.

One, there is no indication that God ever remarried Israel after the Assyrian/Babylonian captivity, so there could be no possible adultery.

I agree, because couldn't remarry Israel.

Two, remarrying the same woman that you previously divorced is not considered adultery.

Incorrect. The Law was very clear on this point. If a man divorced his wife and she went in to another man, he was forbidden to remarry her.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The only way the" wife" (Israel) could be freed from the stain of having been "put away" (divorced) by God was for God (her husband) to die which would annul and dissolve original marriage contract. Paul understood that when, using the law to explain, he reminded the Jews that the law only has jurisdiction over a person until their death. When the person dies, any judgments, contracts, or obligations are then made moot/void.

Romans 7:1-3:

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Your idea that "spiritual Israel" is somehow different from national Israel is completely unjustified.

No...not really. The original covenant was with the Nation of Israel.

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.

Right? The promise is fulfilled in the Church.

[Darfius]

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.

The point is that he "read an account", meaning an account existed. Symeon later records an account of Antipas dying under Domitian. With no mention of even the possibility that he died under Nero. Are we to believe that this "well known" account had become so corrupted that all association with Nero had become obliterated? Nonsense. Occam's Razor, silly preterists.

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:

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.

Tertullian's "point" is the necessity of being willing to be martyred for the brethren and it clearly hinges on the historical fact of Antipas doing so and the further argument that the Lord's promise to "deliver from the last trial" had been kept in Antipas. Rev 3:10 says I will keep you from the last trial, whereas Tertullian--referring to a singular "he"--applies it in the past to "he" who had not denied the Lord. It's ridiculous to say none of what comes before or after applies to Antipas. Did Antipas not die for the brethren? Did his love not cast out his fear? Was he not faithful unto death?

[Darfius]

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?

Huh??? First you mock me for affirming the Mandela Effect and then you suggest that my argument is not that persuasive because of the possibility of it being Mandela effected? Get your logic straight, lady.

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.

Christ came so that we could have life, not so that we could try to escape punishment for our sins by regurgitating trite catchphrases about Him and what He came to do. He also said that the only worshippers He and His Father seek are truth seekers. If you have no concern about reality being altered contrary to God's decree, you are not a truth seeker and your worship of God is merely rules made up by men, as it was for the people Jesus condemned when He came the first time. I witness the power of Christ in my life everyday by my improved ability to discern, expose and avoid lies and wickedness. Do you?

[Darfius]

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.

It's weird that you underline Israel here, but later try to pass off "the church" as Israel. Why are you selectively literal with what Israel means?

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 3:1

faithless Israelfaithless Israelfor I am faithfulfaithless peoplefor I am your husband

© Copyright Original Source

God directly refutes your crap argument about not marrying the same woman you've sent away and who has been unfaithful to you. All through Scripture, God states that He is faithful even when we are faithless. You would make a liar of Him to avoid having to prove your faith in the coming tribulation.

[Obsidian]

Well, I can see your problem...your interpreting Scripture "instinctively".
Masada was the final death nail in the Jewish War. It marked the end of Israel as a Nation and as God's "chosen people". That paved the way for the Church "whether Jew or Greek". I think that's a pretty important reason

No, the end of Israel as a "nation" was the Assyrian captivity. The end of Judea as a "nation" was the Babylonian captivity. Masada had little to do with anything.

Incorrect. The Law was very clear on this point. If a man divorced his wife and she went in to another man, he was forbidden to remarry her.
. . . .
The only way the" wife" (Israel) could be freed from the stain of having been "put away" (divorced) by God was for God (her husband) to die which would annul and dissolve original marriage contract. Paul understood that when, using the law to explain, he reminded the Jews that the law only has jurisdiction over a person until their death. When the person dies, any judgments, contracts, or obligations are then made moot/void.

One, that law only applied when the wife remarried, and two, you are completely changing your arguments from what you said above. Above you said that "National Israel" needed to be killed in order to let God/Jesus remarry someone else. Now you are saying that Jesus needed to be killed in order for him to remarry the very same woman. Even assuming that your latter point is correct (it is not) about Jesus needing to die in order to remarry the same wife, what could that possibly have to do with Revelation?

And the church, without any separation of Jews and Greeks, was already in effect starting with the crucifixion.

[Obsidian]

@Darfius

The book's reference to making the Jews come and worship at Christians' feet (Revelation 3:9) and the command to measure the temple in Jerusalem (Revelation 11:1) both make it fairly clear that Revelation was written before the Jewish War. Any writers who made comments to the contrary could simply be mistaken.

[Darfius]

@Darfius

The book's reference to making the Jews come and worship at Christians' feet (Revelation 3:9) and the command to measure the temple in Jerusalem (Revelation 11:1) both make it fairly clear that Revelation was written before the Jewish War. Any writers who made comments to the contrary could simply be mistaken.

Not the Jews, but "those who say they are Jews." And the command to measure the temple is in parallel to Ezekiel 40, because the temple will be rebuilt "in times of trouble" = tribulation

[DesertBerean]

Huh??? First you mock me for affirming the Mandela Effect and then you suggest that my argument is not that persuasive because of the possibility of it being Mandela effected? Get your logic straight, lady.

Exactly my point....your logic doesn't work when applied, does it?

[Darfius]

Exactly my point....your logic doesn't work when applied, does it?

"My" logic is that despite the fact that the devil is being allowed to alter reality to a limited extent, he does not have carte blanche to do so and it is still our responsibility to pursue and discern truth.

[xcav8tor]

Masada was the final death nail in the Jewish War. It marked the end of Israel as a Nation and as God's "chosen people".

[xcav8tor]

[tabibito]

So where is this third temple? Paul died before the second temple was destroyed - and there is nothing in the text to show that he is referring to any temple other than the one that, should he visit Jerusalem, he would see.

[Darfius]

So where is this third temple? Paul died before the second temple was destroyed - and there is nothing in the text to show that he is referring to any temple other than the one that, should he visit Jerusalem, he would see.

What is the rebellion Paul is speaking of? Rebellion by who against whom? Dissect the text a little more carefully, so you are not caught unaware on that day.

[tabibito]

What is the rebellion Paul is speaking of? Rebellion by who against whom? Dissect the text a little more carefully, so you are not caught unaware on that day.

Your beliefs might have me looking south when the important events are happening in the north-east.

[Darfius]

Your beliefs might have me looking south when the important events are happening in the north-east.

Don't speak in riddles, you aren't Christ. Say what you mean plainly.