# Antipas, a solid rebuttal to preterism?



## ReformedWretch (Dec 30, 2004)

My faithful martyr

Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where
thou dwellest, [even] where Satan's
seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my
name, and hast not denied my faith,
even in those days wherein Antipas
[was] my faithful martyr, who
was slain among you,
where Satan dwelleth.

Jesus calls
Antipas my faithful martyr 

AND

Antipas is the only follower
actually named as martyr in Revelation.

Antipas was a leader in the church
at Pergamos in 83 AD

Antipas was later martred in
Pergamos on April 11, 90 AD

It is said that Antipas was
consecrated bishop of Pergamos
by the Apostle John himself!

Well,
that certainly makes sense now 

Irenaeus speaks of Revelation
Irenaeus (circa 180 AD)

says of the book--

"For it was seen, not a long time
ago, but almost in our own generation,
at the END of the reign of Domitian"
(Adv. Haer., v.30, 3).

And St John was exiled to the Isle of
Patmos by Domitian in 95 AD

Domitian was Emperor of Rome from
September 14, 81 AD - September 18, 96 AD

Here´s Domitian´s coin

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac49dom.html

The Revelation of Jesus Christ
was made known in 96 AD and is a
book of Prophecy.

Rev 1:3 Rev 11:6 Rev 19:10
Rev 22:7 Rev 22:10 Rev 22:18
Rev 22:19

The fate of Antipas is recorded
by Simeon Metaphrastes.

The martyred Saint Antipas is
celebrated on April 11th


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 31, 2004)

This must be addressed (Paul?).


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 31, 2004)

Well, I did find this;

the death of Antipas is disputed here by prominent church historian Schaff (who wrote in preface he believed the early dating):

History of the Christian Church, chapter 6

The heathen historians, if we are to judge from their silence, seem to confine the persecution to the city of Rome, but later Christian writers extend it to the provinces.528 The example set by the emperor in the capital could hardly be without influence in the provinces, and would justify the outbreak of popular hatred. If the Apocalypse was written under Nero, or shortly after his death, John's exile to Patmos must be connected with this persecution. It mentions imprisonments in Smyrna, the martyrdom of Antipas in Pergamus, and speaks of the murder of prophets and saints and all that have been slain on the earth. The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:32-34, which was written in Italy, probably in the year 64, likewise alludes to bloody persecutions, and to the release of Timothy from prison, 13:23. And Peter, in his first Epistle, which may be assigned to the same year, immediately after the outbreak of the persecution, and shortly before his death, warns the Christians in Asia Minor of a fiery trial which is to try them, and of sufferings already endured or to be endured, not for any crime, but for the name of "Christians."530 The name "Babylon"531 for Rome is most easily explained by the time and circumstances of composition.


----------



## bigheavyq (Dec 31, 2004)

the people of pergamos worshipped a satanic god which was a large snake with a kings crown.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Here's what Ken Gentry wrote me about this
> 
> Two issues limit the usefulness of this statement for undermining the early date: (1) Such names back then were common enough that we cannot be sure if we have the right one. For instance, consider the debate over "I John, your companion in tribulation" (Rev. 1:9). Most evangelicals believe this identifies John the Apostle (as I do). But there is a large argument that applies it to "John the Elder" (even appearing in Eusebius' writings as such).
> ...



Sounds like Gentry is reaching.


----------



## Peter (Jan 5, 2005)

If Wayne Wylie were a famous martyr and the verse only said "Wayne" was martyred I would assume it was Wayne Wylie. Not conclusive, but compelling (unless you're prejudiced by your presuppositions to begin with).

[Edited on 5-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> If Wayne Wylie were a famous martyr and the verse only said "Wayne" was martyred I would assume it was Wayne Wylie. Not conclusive, but compelling (unless you're prejudiced by your presuppositions to begin with).
> 
> [Edited on 5-1-2005 by Peter]



If they identified "Wayne" with a particular church I went to and there were no other "Waynes" there. the evidence would be pretty compelling that it was me! Just as its pretty compelling that the writer of the Revelation was John the Apostle not some other John. 

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, odds are its a duck and not a goose.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Here's what Ken Gentry wrote me about this
> 
> Two issues limit the usefulness of this statement for undermining the early date: (1) Such names back then were common enough that we cannot be sure if we have the right one. For instance, consider the debate over "I John, your companion in tribulation" (Rev. 1:9). Most evangelicals believe this identifies John the Apostle (as I do). But there is a large argument that applies it to "John the Elder" (even appearing in Eusebius' writings as such).
> ...



Wow! Ken Gentry is a Jr. on top of all those other titles that is amazing.:bigsmile:


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > If they identified "Wayne" with a particular church I went to and there were *no other* "Waynes" there.
> ...



You would assume that it was Wayne Wylie because there there are "no other" Waynes at that Church. Its as simple as that. Its not that tough to figure out.


----------



## Peter (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> My faithful martyr
> 
> Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where
> ...




John ordains the Antipas martyred in 90 A.D. John speaks of a martyr named Antipas in Revelation. You cant even say, "seems probable they are the same Antipas, but other facts I believe about Rev. preclude me from saying so."?


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 5, 2005)

> John ordains the Antipas martyred in 90 A.D. John speaks of a martyr named Antipas in Revelation. You cant even say, "seems probable they are the same Antipas, but other facts I believe about Rev. preclude me from saying so."?



Sounds like you can't get past your presuppositions?


----------



## VERITAS (Jan 5, 2005)

Well at least we know which Kenneth Gentry we're talking about! Maybe... Try doing a whitepages.com search for "Kenneth Gentry" and it will tell you that there are too many results to be displayed. Knowing that Ken lives in TX you could limit the search to just TX, but even that provides a list of 61 potential Kenneth Gentrys! 

Oh well, at least *Herod Antipas* got to bask in the glory that his name invoked on gushing new parents...

[Edited on 1-5-2005 by VERITAS]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 5, 2005)

Thing is Wayne, I have to consider the logic being used here because the whole "Antipas" issue cannot over come all the other evidences given. To take the "Antipas agrument" over all the others is to cede quite a bit. If one would place all the evidence on a scale, it would leave the "Antipas proves Revelation was written after AD70" argument on the wanting side.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VERITAS_
> Well at least we know which Kenneth Gentry we're talking about! Maybe... Try doing a whitepages.com search for "Kenneth Gentry" and it will tell you that there are too many results to be displayed. Knowing that Ken lives in TX you could limit the search to just TX, but even that provides a list of 61 potential Kenneth Gentrys!
> 
> Oh well, at least Herod Antipas' got to bask in the glory that his name invoked on gushing new parents...



Hello Veritas, welcome to the board. What a thread to make your first post in!


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Thing is Wayne, I have to consider the logic being used here because the whole "Antipas" issue cannot over come all the other evidences given. To take the "Antipas agrument" over all the others is to cede quite a bit. If one would place all the evidence on a scale, it would leave the "Antipas proves Revelation was written after AD70" argument on the wanting side.



Adam,

True the Antipas argument in and of itself would not convince a preterist, partial or otherwise. But then again it is another arrow in the quiver of the non-preterist, partial or otherwise 

(if you haven't figured it out I'm not a preterist, partial or otherwise).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 5, 2005)

I'm just mulling over these things myself, but to quote Sherlock Holmes, "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

~ _The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet_ (1892)


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 5, 2005)

Oh I figured that out 

May I ask what your perspective is then? I mean I can respect any and all opinions but I would like to know your take on it.


----------



## VERITAS (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_To take the "Antipas agrument" over all the others is to cede quite a bit.



I agree that it cedes quite a lot. So, what would be the *benefits* or the *consequences* of denying an early date based upon the "evidence" of Antipas?

It still wouldn't prove the diSpENSATIONAL model true and it would make The Revelation a bit of useless fancy, mere filler to the tome of Scripture. What would be the point of 2 witnesses, calculating the number of the beast, describing the character of the great whore, etc.?

And would a late date have more of an apologetic value when witnessing to Jews or less?

BTW, hi *Adam*. Thanks for the welcome!

*Edit:* Elkton, MD huh? I had Tyler, TX in mind. I guess I was thinking of Gary North...

[Edited on 1-5-2005 by VERITAS]

[Edited on 1-5-2005 by VERITAS]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 5, 2005)

Paul, Just out of curiosity, where does Gentry go to church/minister? On the SCCCS website, it says that Gentry is pastor of an OPC church in Costa Mesa, CA. I have friends in Elkton...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Ah, that is interesting. I appreciate the info. If you have the opportunity to inquire further, I'd be glad to know more.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



LogicBoy,

I have a call in for Spock back in Vulcan. I thought I would check with him to make sure my argument is not contradictory or apparently contradictory or a paradox. I wouldn't want you to have to call be a "reductio" or something like that! As soon as I hear back from Spock I will lay out my argument.


----------



## VERITAS (Jan 5, 2005)

Ok, but only because you said "10-4"... 


[Edited on 1-5-2005 by VERITAS]


----------



## RickyReformed (Jan 5, 2005)

Have any preterists (partial or otherwise) commented on E. B. Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae? The material in these audio messages titled Preterism Refuted comes from this book. I haven't listened to these audio messages yet so I can't comment on them, nor have I read Elliot's book (2,500 pages). Here's a description of the book and it's author:



> E.B. Elliot (1793-1875)
> 
> The title continues: "Illustrated by an Apocalyptic Chart, and Engravings from Medals and Other Extant Monuments of Antiquity. With Appendices: Containing, Besides Other matters, A Sketch of the History of Apocalyptic Interpretation, Critical Reviews of the Chief Apocalyptic Counter-Schemes, and Indices." This four volume set is respected by many as a scholarly work on eschatology. It will be especially valuable in our day as it absolutely destroys the Jesuit inspired preterist system by conclusively proving a late date for the writing of the book of Revelation. Elliott also demonstrates the impossibility of the futurist system, which, like preterism, was also concocted (as a system) by the Jesuits to counteract the classic Reformation eschatology called historicism. That this is no small issue is clear, as Kevin Reed exhibits (in his book review titled "The Ecclesiology of John Foxe: A book review by Kevin Reed of John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church by V. Norskov Olsen [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973]") by citing Olsen when he writes,
> 
> ...


from http://www.historicist.com/horae.htm

[Edited on 6-1-2005 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I haven't. But I guess I've been refuted:bigsmile:



And over a hundred years ago, too!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



I believe he is now the pastor of a PCA church in South Carolina. I can find out more this week.


----------



## bigheavyq (Jan 6, 2005)

*date of revelation*

of course there is always the interpretation of Joseph Braswell. He believes in the late date and that revelation is more of a newspaper report describing what happened at the destruction of jerusalem. btw I have real problems with this interpretation.

He wrote it many years ago in the Chalcedon Report, I don't have the link. sorry.


----------



## VERITAS (Jan 6, 2005)

Thanks for the links *Ricky*. The audio sermons are very tedious listening. Perhaps _reading_ the original would be easier to follow. But I would just say that the historicist method doesn't do justice to the sacred text, intent or original audience of The Revelation and thus fails to satisfy. How anyone can come up with the following nonsense is mind-boggling:

"The successive time periods during which these Seven Seals occurred are as follows. The dates quoted are merely guides, as each period overlapped to some degree with its neighbouring period, and some authorities vary as to the actual event which marks a particular period.

Seal 1. 96 - 180 A.D. Rome Victorious.

Seal 2. 185 - 284. Civil War.

Seal 3. 200 - 250 Taxation & Depression.

Seal 4. 250 - 300 Decay and Death.

Seal 5. 303 - 313 Christian Martyrs.

Seal 6. 313 - 395 Fall of Paganism. " (The First Six Seals)

Who determines the parameters of these arbitrary time frames!?!

BTW *Ricky*, what eschatological camp do you fall into? Would you consider yourself a historicist? And what about you *Wayne*, what would you label yourself?

For years I've jokingly referred to myself as a preposta-millennialist (sounds like preposterous ) because I believe that Christ came in judgment prior to the millennium (pre-); that from the perspective of eternity His Kingdom will be seen as a glorious Golden Age of the Gospel (post-); and that the millennium isn't strictly a 1,000 yr span of time, but a symbol of a long span of time (a-). If I had to pick only one category I guess I would choose awe-millennial, because it seems the more biblical than what is preposed in the other two camps.

And I'm guessing that *Paul* is a full-preterist?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 6, 2005)

Paul is a partial preterist and has debated against full preterism with much success.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I think you are right, Fred. Gentry's website indicates that he pastors the Fairview Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Fountain Inn, South Carolina (near Greenville). I have friend near Greenville who is friends with Gentry so I will try to confirm it that way as well. 

https://host186.ipowerweb.com/~kenneth1/about.htm


----------



## VERITAS (Jan 6, 2005)

Sorry *Paul*. It was probably the photo behind you, the slight resemblance to *Ward Fenley* when his head is shaved, the pipe, the rabid way in which you're out to argue/defend your position... I've listened to those guys for so long that I guess I'm always a little more wary than necessary.

Glad to hear that you guys have the backbone to state the brutal truth about _fool_-preterism.

BTW *Adam*, I looked in *Chilton*'s commentary on The Revelation and he simply says that no one knows exactly who this Antipas was and goes on.

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by VERITAS]


----------



## VERITAS (Jan 6, 2005)

*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 (Jan 6, 2005)

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 (Jan 6, 2005)

> _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:
> ...



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 (Jan 6, 2005)

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 (Jan 6, 2005)

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 (Jan 6, 2005)

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 (Jan 6, 2005)

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 (Jan 6, 2005)

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 (Jan 6, 2005)

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 (Jan 6, 2005)

> 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 (Jan 7, 2005)

> _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]


----------

