Featured Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

Papias still wrote after the fact. And when the Romans were finished with suppressing the Jewish rebellion, the Jews went right back to their form of worship, minus the temple.(They still had many synagogues.) They coulda whacked John later, no problem.(The Romans wanted to resume doing business with the Jews who hadn't been principals in their rebellion.)

 

This whole thread is a pret attempt to move the date of the Rev back, to try to support the pret myth. This has become a game of "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller".

Sorry, prets, but history proves your myth false, as the prophesied eschatological events simply haven't yet happened. There's just no getting by that FACT.

 

Say what?

 

I thought he was pretty clear. Preterism is a hoax.

 

I know that, what has it go to do with our discussion?

 

I don't understand why you think that you have to be "scholar" before you accept what a person says? Your thinking is very narrow. Like you seem to reject what someone says because they are Roman Catholic. Even some non Christian experts can be used by the Lord

 

Why else would AsterixTom try to move the giving of the Rev back to an earlier time? prets try to do it so they can say Nero was the beast/antichrist & all eschatology was fulfilled in 66-70 AD. I know someone asked for history proving that early date, but he posted a pretty groddy example.

 

I consider scholarship to be the search for truth. A scholar is one who searches for truth. However, our current topic depends on specialized knowledge and understanding, something not evident in the Church of Christ preacher Tom quoted--the man got the sources wrong, so his conclusions were tainted.

As for Catholic scholars, no, I don't trust them. They have to obey the Catholic hierarchy, and therefore their search for truth is limited. Just looking on the Catholic website you sourced, I noted a place or two where the Catholic scholars had to toe the Catholic line.

 

well, I ain't a scholar, and I am VERY interested in the truth, especially Bible Truth!

 

Excellent!

 

The search for truth cannot be biased. When a student hands me a research paper, it must not take a position it cannot sustain. It may not quote from sources that are not fair.

I met up this past summer with a scholar who had years ago written a very objectionable essay about my grandfather's place in church history. At that time, I objected strenuously to some biased language he used, quoting from an historian who was anti-fundamentalist. However, more recently he included a chapter about a certain controversy between my grandfather and Lewis Sperry Chafer in a book he recently wrote about the history of Baptist fundamentalism through about 1960. This time he asked me, "Was I balanced?" I answered that he certainly was. (We're friends now.) This is a scholar who searches for truth and does the research necessary to find it.

 

Lol, the same Irenaeus that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Right.

 

What is your view on "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev 20:6) KJV?

Is this a future event or has it already happened?

 

On your ignore list simply because you can't answer their arguments.

 

For what reason?