Featured Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

I never said Jesus passed through the valley of the shadow of death. Besides that is actually physically dying, but not dying at the same time. But dying is a totally different topic, though closely related.

I said John did in the vat of burning oil. I am also aware of the different Johns as well. How many humans in the first century by the name of John can live for decades without "aging"? I would also posit that John was a preteen in 30AD. That would make him about the same age as Christ when the Jews tried to kill him, or even younger, not an older man.

Now one can argue that like the 3 Hebrews in Daniel, did not die, but was just spared, how many times would John do as Jesus declared? That John would actually die? What is death, when no one after the Cross could taste death? It is simply the soul moving from a corruptible body into a permanent incorruptible body. See 2 Corinthians 5. Paul starts out claiming there is a permanent body in Paradise waiting for the soul. If God saw fit to give John a permanent body when he was literally boiled alive, that would be exactly what Jesus declared. James recieved his permanent body in Paradise. John on the other hand recieved it on earth. Tradition and history can declare all they want about John, but God did not declare in God's Word what happened to John. Not even that he was placed in boiling oil, which would have killed John, just the same as James did literally die.

The other issue is did their mom put them up to ask Jesus that question and was it all her idea? This indicates they may have been way younger than the other disciples and a hovering mother was making sure the older disciples would not just push them off to a side being older and more mature. This is clear when mothers were bringing their children to Jesus. Some of the disciples rebuked them. There is a plausible explanation why James and John's mother stepped up. Not sure why all these events are unrelated. The book of John seems to not have any of that personal historical background about James and John like the other 3 Gospels. Was John going out of the way to not mention any personal incidents as a disciple? Only Peter, James and John were witnesses of the Transfiguration of Jesus.

Even in the Garden, Peter. James and John were singled out, to go further than the other disciples. Would they have been singled out, even if they had not brought that point up, or their mother, about such a consideration? Acts says James was killed with a sword. How Peter and John died are still mysteries, no matter what tradition claims. John, if placed in boiling oil and survived, would still have been a life changing experience, no matter how one interprets such an action.

 

Give it your best shot. I'll answer as I have time.

True, but here is the problem. I have J. B. Lightfoot's translation of The Apostolic Fathers, and it includes everything we have as evidence about Papias, which is not much. And there is no direct evidence of what your source is alleging. In other words, we have no direct proof of what your source alleges.

Ed Stevens is misleading us here. He has these supposed quotes with Pap. X.X before each one. That lead me to believe at first that he was quoting Papias, since that is how ancient documents are quoted, with the author and numbers. But he is not.

1. The first one (5.5) is not from Papias, but from Philippus from Side. He did not write until the 5th century, over 400 years after John. So his statement is late and without proof. Even granting his statement as fact, it does not move the date of Rev. back from AD 96 or thereabouts.
2. The second point, 6.3, is from Georgius Hamartolos, not from Papias. Georgius does not quote Papias, but only says that he says (Lightfoot, p. 267). And the thing is, George was not even alive until the 9th century. His statement is very late and without proof.
3. The third point, 6.4, is also from George, quoting Matt. 20:22, but I see no proof of anything preterist there.

No, Papias did not claim this. Philippus and Georgius said he did, but that's pretty nebulous.

Oh, really? "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John 18:31).

He wants $10 for a PDF! No thanks. He's not a scholar. His seminary degree is from is Sunset International Bible Institute, which does not list its faculty--a sure sign of a degree mill.

 

"The book of Revelation was written by John and foretells the story of the anti-Christ. The problem is that some people do not want to believe that this is a literal prophecy of end times. Called 'preterists', these interpreters want to make Revelation an allegory about Nero" (David Criswell, The Apostles After Jesus, p. 45).

"In an attempt to support their theological agenda, some try desperately to shift the Patmos exile from Domitian to Nero. Bernard Ruffin implies that Tertullian and Jerome place John's exile under Nero, but in fact they say nothing of the sort. They do not give the name of the emperor in question, but others do. Each and every church father who mentions the time or emperor place hi exile under Domitian' reign in the mid 90s. No church father names Nero" (Ibid.).

This author is a genuine scholar, having a PhD from Tyndale Theological Seminary, and is a fellow at Louisiana Baptist Seminary.

 

Where is it available free? The site I found is selling it for ten bucks, five times the price of their other downloadables.

https://www.preterist.org/store/digital-downloads/

 

Whether he is a wonderful friend or not, a great Christian or not, has nothing to do with scholarship.

Getting a genuine graduate degree takes thousands of hours and thousands of dollars. And the requirements for research are rigorous. I just finished a 4 hour DMin course that cost me a huge amount of work and funds. And even before I took any courses for credit, I had to take a class on how to do doctoral level research. So personally, I have little patience for degree mills, which steal your money and give you a piece of paper for not much work.

I can wait.

 

More about Sunset International Bible Institute, where the MA information says: "It is estimated that approximately one-fourth of the preachers currently preaching in the Churches of Christ received their training from Sunset." (Questions about the Master's Degree | Sunset International Bible Institute).

The Church of Christ movement is baptismal regeneration heresy. I have talked to many, many of those folk down in Tennessee, and they are stubborn in their heresy. There is even a Church of Christ in Franklin, TN (or used to be), that values baptism so much they have a fiberglass outline of a baptistry on their outside wall.

Ed Stevens says plainly on his website, "Preached nine years in Church of Christ congregations in TX, NY, OH and PA." (https://www.preterist.org/about-us/who-we-are/)

Look at the doctrinal statemen of the IPA: https://www.preterist.org/about-us/what-we-believe/. There is nothing about salvation! So they rope people in without telling them that the head of the organization apparently believes in baptismal regeneration. What's that old idiom about "strange bedfellows"?

 

Look again. I did not say that Ed believes in baptismal regeneration. But if he does not, then what was he doing pastoring baptismal regeneration churches, according to his own website? Ask him what he believes about that. I'll wait.

 

Um, no, I do not claim to be a scholar. Never have. Some call me that, but I do not call myself that. So this statement is false witness about me.

Mea culpa. I did not state it clearly, but what I was trying to point out is that nothing in the doctrinal statement tells what they believe about how to get saved. So their doctrinal statement allows for baptismal regeneration.

This kind of attack gets you into trouble on the BB.

 

That is an ambiguous statement that I believe leaves room for baptismal regeneration. But don't listen to me, ask your friend directly.

 

I'm aware that there is a rumor on the BB that I get some kind of special treatment. But I'm positive that if I said to you, "You are lying," I'd be rebuked by the leadership here. I have been rebuked before and I'm sure I will be again.