by raymond frantz 50 Replies latest watchtower bible
I've pointed out that there was no witness only tradition asserted by those with motive.
I've also just noticed Papias (there in the quote by Eusebius) a contemporary of Polycarp claimed to have learned from those "who followed" the Apostles. That is also suggestive that the Polycarp legend is unlikely.
But moving on,... by your logic ought not the earliest interpretations of the apocalypse be the most persuasive?
No, in my view MS and factual evidence would be wholly unrelated to interpretation. What I read today and my interpretation would be far removed from the interpretation of, for example, the Church Fathers. Each interprets the Bible in his/her own way, depending on personality, background, schooling and internal/external influences. Polycarp was killed for his faith, one of many. I would never dishonor a martyr by questioning his existence. This according to one of my sources:
The martyrdom of Polycarp, in 155 or 156, was an example of mob violence, to which Hadrian had been opposed. The occasion was the festival of the Commune Asiae, a notable anniversary of Caesar - worship of which Smyrna was a chief centre. There is good reason to suppose that the crowd, stirred by the ceremonies turned against the Christians as known opponents of the imperial cult, and the Asiarch, Philip, having tried in vain to induce the bishop to acknowledge Caesar as Lord, condoned the action of the mob by ordering Polycarp's execution.
The account according to Eusebius, a solid and reliable Church historian: The Early Christian Church by J. G. Davies. A lot of information there to write off as mere legend. In a court of law that would have gone down as a "reliable witness," with time, place and an accurate description of events.
Vidqun..The account according to Eusebius, a solid and reliable Church historian
I'll remind you it was Eusebius who argued that John the Presbyter was likely the author of the Apocalypse
You suggest I dismiss Polycarp as ahistorical, not at all. His legend grew however to include many rather ridiculous tales of miracles and embellishments. You mention his martyrdom. Do you believe the story as found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp? (An anonymous document written sometime in the 2nd to 4th century)
Do you feel a voice from heaven told him to be "a man" and that the towering fire refused to kill him but only made him glow and smell like frankincense? Do you believe that when a soldier walked up to him and pierced his side, a dove ascended from him and such volumes of blood poured out that it extinguished the fire?
Do we not have to acknowledge legend making?
Polycarp was tortured and burnt at the stake. I can respect a person that takes a stand for what he believes and willing to pay with his life for the privilege. Of course those that came after him, for different reasons, might have added their own tail/tale to the story. There is enough evidence there for me to believe the kernel. For the rest, I have to allow for the "benefit of the doubt," because I was not there to verify such statements.
May I remind you, that is exactly the type of accusations that the Jews and now modern scholarship sling against Jesus and Christianity as a whole. Jesus was a prophet. His followers concocted the stories of the NT in order to deify him and rally the troops. If you follow that type of reasoning, then not much will remain of your faith.
I read through the Bible multiple times and can vouch for its veracity. Through study and prophecy I could confirm my findings. As a scientist, I had a problem with the theory of evolution. This forum helped me to work it out. I now know where I stand and what I believe. A appreciate reasonable and constructive criticism. What others say or do beyond that does not concern me in the least.
Vidqun:
Jeffro, if you followed the given scriptures you would see my interpretation is 100% consistent with the Bible.
I have already provided specific examples of how your interpretation is not consistent with what the Bible says.
The following is John's definition of "antichrist," not superstitious at all.The view that ‘Jesus is not the Christ’ is the default position of everyone except Christians, and ‘John’s definition’ is redundant rhetoric. The view that anyone who doesn’t believe that ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is in some way ‘especially bad’ is a superstition.
Vidqun, would you recommend a similar approach to the Koran or the Vedas? How about the Urantia book?Dianetics?
. As a scientist, .....
No doubt you have training as a scientist, but you are definitely not acting as a scientist in this discussion.
No, in my view MS and factual evidence would be wholly unrelated to interpretation. What I read today and my interpretation would be far removed from the interpretation of, for example, the Church Fathers. Each interprets the Bible in his/her own way, depending on personality, background, schooling and internal/external influences.
I agree completely. I just ask the follow up question, Is this really the best God can do?
No, in my view MS and factual evidence would be wholly unrelated to interpretation.
Indeed. Factual evidence has very little to do with your interpretation (and all other interpretations that seek to apply NT claims to the present period).
I would never dishonor a martyr by questioning his existence.
Circular reasoning.
😴💤
No,Jeffro, not circular reasoning. It's called personal opinion, showing respect to the departed.
Peacefulpete, actually it has to do with us, and not with God. How often do you read: "Let the reader use discernment," "this is where wisdom comes in" or "here is where intelligence that has wisdom comes in ["This requires a mind that has wisdom," NET], etc. (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Rev. 13:18; 17:9 NW). Must admit, God doesn't make it easy. A miner has to dig to find hidden gems (cf. Prov. 2:3, 4). These are just two of many examples that I found when I started digging:
Dan. 12:11, 12 mentions a timeline. 1290 days +1335 days = 2625 days (2520 days + 105 days). This covers a period of 7 years + 3 1/2 months. Dan. 12:1 indicates the context, "the time of distress," later referred to as the "great tribulation." Only at the end of that period will one be happy.
"Their corpses will lie in the street of the great city that is symbolically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also crucified." (Rev. 11:8 NET)
What "great city" is he referring to? Many commentators believe he is here talking about Jerusalem "where their Lord was also crucified." But actually it's more than that. Here he mentioned a symbolic city, called Sodom an Egypt, code for a world alienated from God. This city is mentioned later, where it is completely destroyed (cf. Rev. 16:19). So now when you read about the judgments against Egypt, these are very revealing when applying them to conditions in the world (cf. Is. 19; Ezek. 31, 32).
