Featured A Curious Omission

First of all, the rapture happened in the midst of the brutal Neronic persecution and the Jewish War. There were hardly any Christians left. Christ said that "when the Son of Man comes will He find faith in the earth?" Also that if those days had not been cut short no flesh would have been saved.

More later.

 

If it were only my narrative I would be on shaky ground. At the risk of sounding pious it is based on the narrative of Jesus. And much of the New Testament. I hate to see that you overlook the inspired narrative of the New Testament - just as I used to do for decades - in order to underscore the shaky narrative of the ECF.

On the one hand we have the roughly 100 inspired time statements that show the coming of CHrist would be within the generation of His hearers ("some standing here", "this generation will not pass away", "last day", "last hour", "about to happen", etc.) and on the other hand we have the uninspired narrative from a far from disinterested churchman. More on this later.

But first this, if all of the Christians had left the earth c. AD 70 and John and Polycarp, both being Christians (per your words "his mentor") were alive at the time, they would both have been raptured. So Polycarp would not have been around to leave that record.

But how do we know that Polycarp even knew John? I doubt this testimony very much. Here is why:

1. All the evidence, once again, funnels down to one source, the testimony of Irenaeus, the same man who blundered in other areas of research.
2. Irenaeus (I am tempted to spell his name with the German "Irren" - "to err") wrote that Papias was a disciple of John.
3. But Eusebius, a church historian who actually read the book of Papias (now lost) says this cannot be true.
4. It seems Irenaeus was trying to make his apostolic connection to boost the authority of Papias and Polycarp.
5. Eusebius gives us a more realistic view of Papias, writing of his "strange parables" and "legends" in his writings that Papias insists are true.
6. Papias himself never claimed to have seen John, or any other of the Disciples.
7. If Polycarp really knew John, let alone having him as his mentor, why is it that in his letter (which is easy to find on the Internet) he quotes from Matthew, Mark, and Luke but not once from John? You would think that a student would surely quote his teacher, his only link to the Disciples.

No. In this whole Polycarp to John connection there is less to it the closer you look. It is a fabrication in order to boost authority, a tenency in the early, early church that was all too common.

Austin, I second what Lodic wrote. I also appreciate how that you can disagree, but do it agreeably. I have more to add.

 

And ignoring the roughly 100 inspired time statements spoken to 1st-century hearers is crucial to futurism, which is just one reason that I think it's a bad system to adopt.

 

When that demeaning phrase is first dragged out then serious discussion takes a back seat to mere argumentativeness. You have my motives wrong.
I can only assume that you did not even consider the time statements, nor did you really deal with my research concerning these church fathers.

I do intend to answer other points raised, but I wanted to answer this first.

 

These four views, in many key points, are antithetical. There was maybe room for five views in the Hindi parable, as the blind men approached the elephant. Yet there is only one true elephant. The same goes for what is called eschatology. There is only one truth, only one correct eschatology.

How do we prove that prophecy has multiple functions (interpretations?), I am not sure how you mean this. To accommodate those four disparate views above? Prophecy has had at times dual application but, as far as I can recall, always lesser to greater fulfillment. And that greater fulfillment has often been Christ or His work.

I no longer have to consider three of these four views. I have spent years in two of them and was glad to finally be clear about them. And clear of them.

 

And a few verses after He warned about being dragged to the synagogues. And "Pray that your flight not be on the Sabbath."

Do either of these have any spiritual validity today?

These are just two of the many time indicators that many today simply ignore in order to hold on to their eschatology that has a strong hold on them.

Based on your comment to Lodic I would say that you still are. You believe in a physical future return of Christ. Basic definition of a futurist, no matter what other labels are added to it.

 

For those interested in getting free dual language PDFs of the Early Church Fathers I recommend this site.

pdfdrive.com is a great site for all types of books. I have been using it for years now.

 

There was no early church father documentation because there were no early church fathers - that is, no earliest church fathers. In fact there was a twenty year "dead zone" of no writing after the Parousia. And then we had writings from people like Ignatius, a mixture of truth and error.

If God could raise up sons of Abraham from rocks can anything else be too hard for Him? You write of "odds". That is a naturalistic view. How many of the miracles in the Bible would have been denied - are denied - on the basis of the odds being against such events?

These were not just scattered documents. They were letters left behind by the Apostles themselves. There was no immediate need for collection and organization. Jesus told His disciples of the power of His words:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." - John 6:63

These letters at some point clearly were read by those who then became the new crop of Christians. No mentor, strictly speaking, is needed.

I was saved in my bedroom in Germany by reading a Christian book. It had plenty of Scripture and they convicted me and so I prayed the prayer at the end and became a Christian. At the time I did not know a single Christian.

 

I am not "attempting to overcome" anything. I am reading the Bible. I am explaining what I am seeing. Some times I have to revise what I thought I was seeing. But that was always because a helpful critic pointed out to me from the Bible another possibility. That is what I ask from all responders here. Not scanning of motives.

How can I "refuse to explain" something that I strongly disavow - your belief that we are not now in the kingdom of Christ? We are most certainly in the Kingdom and Christ certainly is reigning now. Or how else would you explain Daniel 7:13-14?

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, and all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Notice that Christ came to the Ancient of Days. And then He was given a Kingdom, an eternal kingdom. When did this happen? Not the Incarnation or the Second Coming but the Ascension.

This same event is prefigured in the parable of the Nobleman in Luke 19:12

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return."

The historical connection, which would not have escaped many of His hearers, was the journey of Herod Archelaus to Rome to confirm his kingship. But the deeper significance is Christ's receiving of the Kingdom.

And then, just as the parable relates, there is the return and the voiced opposition of the people, "We will not have this man rule over us."

All of this happened as well.

But whether you accept my last statement or not you - or any futurist - would have a hardship explaining at what point this receiving of the kingship happened. At least, I have not heard a reasonable answer yet.

Brother, I am taking the time to answer your points and rebuttals. But if it does seem like all of this is "making excuses" then you are right. We are at an impasse. Too bad.

 

I give you Scripture and reasoning attached to them. You address none of them. I tried to be respectful but you have not. Feel free to keep writing about my "fantasy world" if you wish. I won't see your comments.