Featured Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

I think you mean Post 12. But there you do not quote Ed Stevens about himself, but someone else, so it is hearsay.

Ed also says on IPA website that he taught at North East Ohio Bible Institute. When I googled that it took me to Northeast Ohio Bible College, which I suppose used to be called what Ed said, though I can't be sure. The doctrinal position of that school says, "We hold the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. We believe in the infallibility, inspiration and authority of the Bible and are committed to the principles of the Restoration Movement." (About NEOBC | Northeast Ohio Bible College) That movement is what spawned the Church of Christ/Christian Church movement, the "Cambellites." If that is where Ed taught, then he had to agree with that statement, I suppose.

So ask Ed, just to be sure. "Ed, there is this jerk on the Baptist Board who is hinting that you are a heretic, that you believe in baptismal regeneration. Say it ain't so."

 

I have not purposefully insulted you, nor accused you of lying. Please tell me where I have insulted you, and I will apologize.

Otherwise, you've taken huge umbrage at my comments about Ed (and I made no direct accusations--just asking questions), and not answered my substantive post about Ed's quotes. I'd be happy to get back to the OP.

 

No, it is actually ambiguous. One could believe in baptismal regeneration and still agree with that statement.

 

I have no doubt that all of the 27 Books of the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation, were completed before AD 70, when the City of Jerusalem fell to the General Titus. Such a momentous event would have been recorded in the NT Books, had any been written after this date. I can see no evidence to refute this.

Even some of the Liberal NT Scrolars, like John A T Robinson, agree with this dating of the Books, https://richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf

It does appear that the persecution under Nero against the Christian Church, is referred to in the Book of Hebrews, during which time the Apostle Paul was Martyred, https://followjonathan.com/2011/08/...tion-mentioned-in-the-epistle-to-the-hebrews/

 

To my knowledge, the only NT book conservatives claim to have been written after AD 70 is Revelation. And I see no reason whatsoever that John would have mentioned an event 26 years previously in that book.

Yeah, he's the "flaming liberal" I mentioned in the other thread; couldn't remember his name. But why in the world someone like him would be claimed to prove a point by conservative Baptists I cannot fathom.

Um, no. That's a huge stretch. There is no clear mention in all of the NT of Nero's persecution, this essay notwithstanding. The author even admits, "Pinning Hebrews 10:32-34 to a historically recorded outbreak of persecution, however, proves to be a difficult task due to the limited amount of data concerning the general context of the Epistle to the Hebrews."

 

I have not seen any external or internal evidence provided by any scholar, that shows Revelation was not written before 70 AD. Do you know of any?

One would not expect a Liberal like JATR to support a "Conservative" position on the dating of the NT Books. Most of them have some rather crazy dates, even saying that some of the Books were written in the 2nd century, as did the Liberal Bruce Metzger:

“The conclusion that these three epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria. First and Second Timothy and Titus share a common Greek vocabulary and style that diverges in many ways from the other Pauline epistles. Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century Ce when Paul was no longer alive… Even if not composed by Paul, they have historically had a very influential role in Christian thought and practice, and the controversies they sought to “fix” —such as the roles of women in the church—remain alive to the present day” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Margaret M. Mitchell, Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, p. 1725)

 

Intriguing. I know of a “denomination”, perhaps you’ve heard of it too, that is so bent on baptism that they all go by the name Baptist.

 

Sure. Irenaeus stated that the Apostle John "saw the Revelation...at the close of Domitian's reign" (Contra Heresies 5.30.3, quoted in Alan Johnson's commentary in Vol. 12 of EBC, pl. 406). Domitian reigned 81-96.

I don't trust liberal scholarship any further than I can throw a liberal, which isn't far though I have Judo experience.

Liberals will do anything to denigrate clear statements of Scripture, such as the authorial statements of the Pauline epistles.

 

Say it isn't so!

 

There is a quote in the First Letter of Clement to the Church at Corinth, which some scholars date between 64-70 AD;

"And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.." (chap, 34), https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Revelation 22:12 reads, "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done"

I am aware that many hold the Letter was written towards the latter part of the 1st century. But there are also those who would argue for an earlier date, which is very much possible.

 

Too many times we use such arguments. They seem common-sensical enough, but it is just as common-sensical to argue that such an argument is disconnected from the crooked-timber of reality.
Life just doesn't function according to such strict parameters.
The Jews could have killed John in any year.

 

not without the Lord's approval!

 

Why

 

Yet we have a man with DIRECT line connection to John saying it was later.

 

why not? What happened in 70 AD is what Jesus Himself predicted at the end of His Ministry, and was fulfilled during the time of the NT Writers. Acts 5:36-38 mentions uprisings that were small, so something as big as the fall of Jerusalem, will no doubt be in Books written after this

"36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail."

 

Yeah, and this same Church father, Irenaeus, also said that the Nicolaitans, were the followers of the Deacon Nicolas, mentioned in Acts 6:5, who was born-again! He became an apostate, thereby losing his salvation!

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols - Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3

Would you accept this testimony, which shows that a believer filled with the Holy Spirit, can lose their salvation?

 

what is "funny" about #27?

 

the Apostle John died about 100 AD, Irenaeus was born about 30 years later, and probably wrote 20 years later, so what he says is hear-say!

 

Relevance?