Antipas, a solid rebuttal to preterism?

[VERITAS]

Adam, you said that Schaff disputes the death of Antipas but the portion of his history that you quoted doesn't specifically mention that. Is there more?

And Paul, you said that "Antipas is disputed just as is the Domition quote. There is contradictory extrabiblical evidence out there."

1) Are you saying that the name Antipas in The Revelation is disputed, or which Antipas is in view is in dispute?

2) What "contradictory extrabiblical evidence" are you referring to?

Schaff mentions "heathen historians," but Adam's reference was to Simeon Metaphrastes, a 10th century Christian author (who wrote down the legend of Saint Nicholas). Is there earlier evidence for Antipas from Christian writers?

Edit: I found this in Jamieson-Fausset-Brown's commentary:

SIMEON METAPHRASTES has a palpably legendary story, unknown to the early Fathers, that Antipas, in Domitian's reign, was shut up in a red-hot brazen bull, and ended his life in thanksgivings and prayers. HENGSTENBERG makes the name, like other apocalyptic names, symbolical, meaning one standing out "against all" for Christ's sake.

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by VERITAS]

 

[VERITAS]

This just in.

David M. Scholer, professor of New Testament and Associate Dean for Advanced Theological Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA had this to say in a mailing list:

There is no known reliable information on Antipas...

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by VERITAS]

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by VERITAS
This just in.

David M. Scholer, professor of New Testament and Associate Dean for Advanced Theological Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA had this to say in a mailing list:

There is no known reliable information on Antipas...

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by VERITAS]

Fuller? Did he get this through a Word of Knowledge or Word of Wisdom? (I always get these two confused).

[Edited on 1/6/2005 by wsw201]

 

[VERITAS]

Yes, yes, I know... But like Dr. Gerstner in a sea of secularism "it could happen!" Maybe he's trying to be salt and light... After all, there was a time when Fuller was considered a bastion of orthodoxy.

Edit: We could question the reliability of the J-F-B commentary too then couldn't we seeing as how it is regarded as moderately liberal...

BTW, you never answered the question. Are you premill? Historic or what?

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by VERITAS]

 

[wsw201]

I am Amill. and never really put much thought into a particular view of Revelations. But I know I don't buy the Futurist view or the Preterist view. I just believe the Bible!

 

[VERITAS]

Then what do you mean when you say that you are Amill? Surely you believe that the EVENTS spoken of in The Revelation occurred either in the past (preterism) or will occur in the future. It's not enough to say that you "just believe the Bible" - it matters WHAT you believe about the Bible.

"Take heed therefore HOW ye hear..." --Luke 8:18

"And He said unto them, Take heed WHAT ye hear..." --Mark 4:24

"And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? {31} And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." --Acts 8:30-31

The latter is one of my father's favorite verses. I was just speaking with him on the phone and he was telling me that C.S. Lewis believed in purgatory. So, I guess regarding the professor at Fuller (as my father likes to quote the passage in James 3:2) that "we ALL stumble in MANY ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man..."

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by VERITAS]

 

[wsw201]

Cheri,

Sorry, I was being "flip" with the "I just believe the Bible" comment. Actually I have not delved heavily into the various positions regarding Revelations and its interpretations. If one of the greatest minds God has graced his Church with (John Calvin) wouldn't write a commentary because he couldn't figure it out, then I am not going to waste a lot of time on it. But as I noted before, I don't buy the preterist view or the whole futurist view.

There are bigger concerns for the Church with the attack on the Gospel itself from within its own ranks, than to be overly concerned whether 666 is the Pope or Nero. I would rather make sure that folks get Justification by Faith Alone right. (I'll get off my soapbox now.)

 

[VERITAS]

Well, Wayne, since you're no longer using the soapbox then I'll get on it.

First, I don't think studying any book of the bible is "to waste a lot of time." The last book of the Bible isn't merely filler - to take up space. After all, it IS THE Revelation of Jesus, The Christ. It is more about Him, His Nature, and the glorious truths of His Gospel more than anything else - be it Nero or (did you say? ) the Pope.

I was saved by studying The Revelation. I had lost a baby and my hyper-Dispensational, word-of-faith mother-in-law (what a combo) said that it was just as well since the Great Tribulation was right around the corner. This was also during the events going on in Waco, TX with David Koresh. I had grown up in the church, attended Christian schools (we read Salem Kirban's "666 and 1000" in Bible class), etc. so I knew there just had to be some truth to what she said. It was only when I actually started to read the Bible that I realized she was wrong and the Bible is it's own best interpreter.

Secondly, if you have never studied the richest, most symbolic book of the Bible (enough to develop an interpretation of its symbols), then why are you contributing posts to a thread you know nothing about, nor apparently want to know anything about?

Thirdly, while I would tentatively call myself a Calvinist I would also say that John Calvin isn't the end-all and be-all to understanding Scripture. And I would say that if he could not understand The Revelation, then that is a fault within him and not something we should perpetuate. Perhaps John Calvin's fault lay within his own interpretative schemes - i.e. not being able to see past his mythological, supra-historical Covenant of Works vs Covenant of Grace. (Oh no, I didn't go down that road, did I...?) The fault with Reformed/Covenant Theology is buying into a theological system that sees little to no progression between the Old Covenant and the New.

We all come to the Bible with our biases whether through pop culture, family history, bad teaching, etc. What we all need is to bow to the authority of Scripture and let the Holy Spirit correctly instruct us through His Word.

OK, I'll get down now. Just let me say that you have nothing to fear and everything to gain by studying The Revelation. Being close to the hyper-preterists for many years forced me to deal with their arguments and to become an expert on the nature of the resurrection. Dealing with dispensationalists forced me to consider the nature of the covenants which in turn forced me to deal with the nature of salvation in the Old Covenant and hence in Judaism today. That led me to studying the politics of Zionism and its Christian counterpart and thus back to Dispensationalism.

The Revelation is a treasure trove of theology. "Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." --Mat 13:52

Grace and Peace,
--C

 

[VERITAS]

In fact, one of the best defenses of the deity of Christ is in The Revelation 1:8 & 18 - especially when dealing with Jehovah's [False] Witnesses. Their New World Translation reads like this:

v.8 "I am the Al'pha and the O-me'ga," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."

vv. 17-18 ..."Do not be fearful, I am the First and the Last, {18} and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha'des.

v. 5 "and from Jesus Christ, 'the Faithful Witness,' 'The first-born from the dead,' and 'The Ruler of the kings of the earth'."

Gotta run. My big truck calleth.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Dealing with dispensationalists forced me to consider the nature of the covenants which in turn forced me to deal with the nature of salvation in the Old Covenant and hence in Judaism today. That led me to studying the politics of Zionism and its Christian counterpart and thus back to Dispensationalism.

So you're a Dispensational?

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by houseparent
So you're a Dispensational?

As the apostle Paul would say: God forbid!

No, what I meant by "back to dispensationalism" is coming back full-circle to the original error. I believe it was Patrick Fairbairn who said there are essentially only 3 eschatological postions: 1) the Jewish 2) the semi-Jewish and 3) the spiritual. To my mind, postmillennialism is semi-Jewish, but dispensational premillennialism is outright Jewish - no difference, no distinction. It is a regression to the thoughts and beliefs of a people prior to the coming of the promised Messiah. If you were to hear/read a Jew and a Dispensational describe their eschatological position without knowing the source, then you would be hard-pressed to guess which camp was articulating their position.

As I said earlier, if I had to choose only one category then I would probably define myself as an awe-millennialist.

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by VERITAS]