Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

[Reformed1689]

Said a person who has not really read Josephus. After the war with Rome the Jews did not have any political power to do what they wanted to John (assuming for the sake of this argument that he was still on Earth after that time - which he wasnt).

Because you have to have political power to kill someone?

 

[Michael Hollner]

Good question. My answer is yes and yes. There are past and future aspects here. The first resurrection include the saints of all ages, the second death obviously not the saints. Those of us alive now still have to enter into the full richness of this promise. I take the thousand years, BTW, as not being that actual length.

'Those of us alive now still have to enter into the full richness of this promise'

And how do we do this? Are you 'Kingdom Theology'?

'I take the thousand years, BTW, as not being that actual length'

How many years does a thousand years equal? Scriptural references?

 

[John of Japan]

I'm pretty sure I'm on Tom's ignore list now. Alas. He called it a "vicious smear" in Post #12 when I suggested that a Church of Christ preacher (pastored 9 of their churches) might believe in baptismal regeneration.

And of course he never answered my points about his quotes from said preacher, who mixed up actual quotes from Papias (which didn't exist) with quotes from men who hundreds of years later said Papias said something.

I'm not going to miss any sleep worrying that Tom will answer, or even apologize for accusing me of lying. Nope, guess I am the bad guy here, and I'm content with that. Y'all have a fun thread.

 

[George Antonios]

Said a person who has not really read Josephus. After the war with Rome the Jews did not have any political power to do what they wanted to John (assuming for the sake of this argument that he was still on Earth after that time - which he wasnt).

Classic academic-type of opinion divorced from the crooked timber of real life.
You don't always need "political power" to kill.

 

[asterisktom]

'
How many years does a thousand years equal? Scriptural references?

There are no Scriptural references for the length of the "thousand years", but there is the indication at the beginning of Revelation that this book conveys truths through symbols.

 

[asterisktom]

'Those of us alive now still have to enter into the full richness of this promise'

And how do we do this? Are you 'Kingdom Theology'?

We do this by dying. Then we will see clearly.

You put 'Kingdom Theology' in quotes so I assume you are referring to one of several uses or misuses of the term. All I mean is that the Kingdom of Christ is now and it will never end.

 

[asterisktom]

Classic academic-type of opinion divorced from the crooked timber of real life.
You don't always need "political power" to kill.

I see; When you do your study it is in-depth research. When I do mine it is an out-of-touch academic exercise. And I would say I have seen more crooked timber than you have.

Shall we have real discussion or are you just going to vent. Earlier posts of yours on a different topic actually had interesting content and some backing. This is just a drive-by pound-and-send.

 

[George Antonios]

There are no Scriptural references for the length of the "thousand years"

Now, that one's a beaut. Let's read it carefully:

"There are no Scriptural references for the LENGTH of the 'THOUSAND YEARS'".

There is just nothing anyone can do at this point except quit. I quit.

 

[asterisktom]

Now, that one's a beaut. Let's read it carefully:

"There are no Scriptural references for the LENGTH of the 'THOUSAND YEARS'".

There is just nothing anyone can do at this point except quit. I quit.

Yes, you do that.

But for anyone else who misses the context of my comment, my point was there is no Scriptural references proving that this phrase was meant to be taken literally as a thousand years. I, in fact, alluded to a verse that strongly suggested the opposite.

As expected, George is reading for ammunition not content, or he would have seen this.

 

[Michael Hollner]

There are no Scriptural references for the length of the "thousand years", but there is the indication at the beginning of Revelation that this book conveys truths through symbols.

'There are no Scriptural references for the length of the "thousand years"'

Well then, I would say a thousand years in scripture is a thousand years then.

'but there is the indication at the beginning of Revelation that this book conveys truths through symbols'

An indication? No thanks sir, I will stick with the scriptures as my indicator.

'the Kingdom of Christ is now'

Where is Christ reigning now on earth other than in the hearts of men? Has Christ already set his feet on the Mount of Olives and come back secretly to rule the world (Zech 14:4) KJV?

'We do this by dying. Then we will see clearly'

That I can agree on.

 

[asterisktom]

I appreciate that point of agreement.

'There are no Scriptural references for the length of the "thousand years"'

Well then, I would say a thousand years in scripture is a thousand years then.

'but there is the indication at the beginning of Revelation that this book conveys truths through symbols'

An indication? No thanks sir, I will stick with the scriptures as my indicator.

I am referring to Scripture, Rev. 1:1:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified (ESEMASEN) it by his angel unto his servant John:"

The book is filled with SIGNS. The Greek word ESEMASEN can be translated "signified" (KJV, NIV), but to do so misses the main thrust of the word, namely that John was writing about actual signs, symbols. William Hendriksen wrote this in "More than Conquerors" (p.38):

"The entire book [of Revelation] consists of changing scenes like these, of moving pictures and active symbols."...

"N.B. the first verse of the book 'and he made it known by means of signs (or symbols)'."

Surely you recognize that there are signs and symbols in this book? Or do we imagine, for instance, a giant angel with giant legs, one on land the other sea? Numbers can be symbols too. Otherwise we have the cattle of Hill #1001 owned by someone other than God. Please consider that the thousand of Revelation is also symbolic.

'the Kingdom of Christ is now'

Where is Christ reigning now on earth other than in the hearts of men? Has Christ already set his feet on the Mount of Olives and come back secretly to rule the world (Zech 14:4) KJV?

Yes, ever since the Parousia Christ has been reigning. He is reigning "in the midst of enemies". This was foretold in many places in the Bible. One is Matt. 21:42 - 45

"42Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes? 43Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” 45When the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they knew that Jesus was speaking about them."

This stone that falls on them is also the stone that falls from Heaven crushing the multi-metaled statue of Daniel 2:34ff:

"34As you watched, a stone was cut out,d but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. 35Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered and became like chaff on the threshing floor in summer. The wind carried them away, and not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that had struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

and

"44In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever."

So, from these passages we can see that:
1.The Jewish leaders and teachers (builders) rejected the stone.
2. The kingdom was taken away from those Jewish leaders that Christ was speaking to.
3.It was given to others producing righteous fruit. This event presupposes the same time period as #2. Scripture knows no spiritual Interregnum. This was in the past, "in the days of those kings".
4.Those on whom the stone falls become like chaff on the threshing floor. (Sim. to the warnings of John the Baptist).
5. This kingdom fills the whole Earth.
6.This Kingdom never ends.

 

[agedman]

Someone in a different thread asked me for historical proof of an eariler date of Revelation. I posted the following but, to this date, there has been no response. So I start a new thread on this because I believe this quote of Papias has bearing on the dating of Revelation. If no outright proof, I believe it strongly implies the earlier date.

------------------------
The best and earliest source would probably be Papias, AD 130, about 50 years before Irenaeus.

Here is a quote from Ed Stevens on this subject (underlining mine):

"
• Notice what Eusebius and Irenaeus (late second century) said about Papias in relation to the apostle
John and his martyrdom [Source: Eusebius (ca. 260– 340), Chronicle. Text: A. Schöne, Eusebi
Chronicorum canonum quae supersunt, vol. 2 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1866), 162.] :

Pap. 5:5 Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were
killed by Jews.
Pap. 6:3 For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen him with his own eyes, claims in the
second book of the Sayings of the Lord that John was killed by Jews, thus clearly fulfilling,
together with his brother, Christ’s prophecy concerning them and their own confession and
agreement about this.
Pap. 6:4 For when the Lord said to them, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” and they
eagerly assented and agreed, he said: “You will drink my cup and will be baptized with the
baptism with which I am baptized.”
Pap. 6:5 And this is to be expected, for it is impossible for God to lie.
Pap. 6:6 [Eusebius said later] Moreover the encyclopedic Origen also affirms in his interpretation of
the Gospel according to Matthew that John was martyred, indicating that he had learned this
from the successors of the apostles [i.e., possibly referring to Papias].

• Papias claimed that John was killed by the Jews, evidently at a time when they still had the ability
and opportunity to do so. This would point to the Neronic persecution (AD 64), until it was cut short
by the outbreak of the Jewish revolt (AD 66). It would not have been easy for them to do much
against Christians after the war began, and especially not after the war ended.

• The Jews had no political or judicial power to kill anyone after 70. It clearly points to a time before 70
when the Jews would have had the authority, opportunity, and means by which to do it. The
Neronic persecution fits that description well, since that is when the Jews were in their most
powerful position against the Christians."

This is from pages 56-57 of his free PDF book, Final Decade Before the End.

BTW I heartily recommend this PDF. It is easy to find on the Internet. If not I will gladly send anyone a copy. A lot of research went into this. John, you would do well to take a look at this as well. It might help you to much better understand, not only this particular topic, but Full Preterism, what it is and is not.

Not that I would like to debate you, but to show that perhaps someone has the wrong information.

According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
taken from: Fragments of Papias​

 

[agedman]

I posted the above so that others may see that the premise of the OP may not be factually based.

 

[asterisktom]

Not that I would like to debate you, but to show that perhaps someone has the wrong information.

According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
taken from: Fragments of Papias​

Yes, I read comments similar to this too, though not this one. But this is not what I was writing of. History books are always written by the winners, hence the aspersions on Papias and his veracity. At any rate I am done with this topic, at least the Papias part of my OP.

 

[agedman]

Yes, I read comments similar to this too, though not this one. But this is not what I was writing of. History books are always written by the winners, hence the aspersions on Papias and his veracity. At any rate I am done with this topic, at least the Papias part of my OP.

I used that which is well documented to show your timing is off, and therefore your premise becomes frail.

The Jews did not kill the apostle John. Though he suffered as a martyr, he was not killed but died of being old.

 

[agedman]

The dating of the Revelation is not questionable.

According to the oldest tradition [in Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3] Rev was written toward the end of the reign of Domitian (81-96). The book's own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian. In the letters included in Rev, persecutions by the officials are expected (2:10), the blood of the martyrs has already flowed (2:13; 6:9), the whole of Christianity is threatened with a fearful danger (3:10): the immediate prospect is for the outbreak of a general persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. In 17:6 John sees the harlot who is Babylon-Rome drunk on the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (cf. 6:10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2). In 20:4 participation in the thousand-year reign is promised to the martyrs who have been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshiped the beast and his image and have not accepted his sign on their forehead and in their hand, i.e., those who have refused divine honors to the emperor (13:4, 12 ff; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20). Christianity has collided with the state and with the state religion, the Christ cult with the imperial cult. In the interest of faith, Rev raises passionate objections to Rome and the imperial cult. That corresponds to the situation under Domitian.

Also favoring the end of the first century as the time of origin of Rev is the fact that according to 2:8-11, the church of Smyrna has been persevering for a long time, while according to Polycarp (Phil 11:3), at the time of Paul it did not even exist; and 3:17 describes the community of Laodicea as rich, while this city had been almost completely destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60/61.

taken from: The Book of Revelation​

 

[Reformed1689]

There are no Scriptural references for the length of the "thousand years", but there is the indication at the beginning of Revelation that this book conveys truths through symbols.

The Scriptural reference for a thousand years is, a thousand years. No honest person believes the entire book of Revelation is symbols.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes, I read comments similar to this too, though not this one. But this is not what I was writing of. History books are always written by the winners, hence the aspersions on Papias and his veracity. At any rate I am done with this topic, at least the Papias part of my OP.

In other words, you can't think of a good response so you either ignore the posts or ignore the argument.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Said a person who has not really read Josephus. After the war with Rome the Jews did not have any political power to do what they wanted to John (assuming for the sake of this argument that he was still on Earth after that time - which he wasnt).

Which war with Rome are you thinking of?

 

[asterisktom]

Which war with Rome are you thinking of?

The First Jewish War, 66–73