Posted on 05/21/2007 1:31:42 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
There is no such "scholarship;" there is only a single, imprecise reference from Irenaeus. Read from Harley's link...
Your late date is the minority opinion, but serves a variety of worldly interests.
soooo.... is Prince the antichrist?
Here is the story from Clement about the Apostle John with highlights by myself:
Having come to one of the cities not far off (the name of which some give), and having put the brethren to rest in other matters, at last, looking to the bishop appointed, and seeing a youth, powerful in body, comely in appearance, and ardent, said, "This (youth) I commit to you in all earnestness, in the presence of the Church, and with Christ as witness." And on his accepting and promising all, he gave the same injunction and testimony. And he set out for Ephesus. And the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and guardianship, under the idea that the seal of the Lord he had set on him was a complete protection to him. But on his obtaining premature freedom, some youths of his age, idle, dissolute, and adepts in evil courses, corrupt him. First they entice him by many costly entertainments; then afterwards by night issuing forth for highway robbery, they take him along with them. Then they dared to execute together something greater. And he by degrees got accustomed; and from greatness of nature, when he had gone aside from the right path, and like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, had taken the bit between his teeth, rushed with all the more force down into the depths. And having entirely despaired of salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having perpetrated some great exploit, now that he was once lost, he made up his mind to a like fate with the rest. Taking them and forming a band of robbers, he was the prompt captain of the bandits, the fiercest, the bloodiest, the cruelest.
Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, "Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to you in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness." The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said "I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother," the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, "He is dead." "How and what kind of death?" "He is dead," he said, "to God. For he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now he has taken possession of the mountain in front of the church, along with a band like him." Rending, therefore, his clothes, and striking his head with great lamentation, the apostle said, "It was a fine guard of a brother's soul I left! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one be my guide on the way." He rode away, just as he was, straight from the church. On coming to the place, he is arrested by the robbers' outpost; neither fleeing nor entreating, but crying, "It was for this I came. Lead me to your captain;" who meanwhile was waiting, all armed as he was. But when he recognized John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, "Why, my son, do you flee from me, your father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; you have still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for you. If need be, I will willingly endure your death, as the Lord did death for us. For you I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ has sent me."
And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand.
Clements talks about John (after being released from Patmos), blessing a boy, who becomes involved in all sorts of nefarious activities over time. After some amount of time goes by, and John has wandered all around the country sides establishing churches and bishops, they call John back, who then hops a horse and rides across the countryside. Now given the account above, and realizing that there seems to be a substantial amount of time that has past, does the Apostle John’s actions sound like he’s 82 or 55 (realizing that he would be closer to 90)? Does it sound pausible that a 90 year old man (in those days) would hop a horse and ride hard to find a lost soul?
Given this story do you think Clements “represents him [sic: John] as at that time an infirm old man.” as Elliot claims. I don’t think so. Elliot obviously made up this statement to support his own contention. Too bad people didn’t have the Internet back then to check it out.
It certainly makes more sense for an old man to need a horse for travel rather than to go on foot. Don't you???
With God, all things are "pausible".
Which is why I harp on trying to learn the ramifications of our beliefs -- what is the result of believing this as opposed to that? (Because if we can see outcomes according to our beliefs, you can be sure Satan does, too, and those who conspire with him, knowingly or otherwise, in order to manipulate us and the future.)
So here we have two different dates and thus two different interpretations of the past and then, inevitably, of the future.
Now who wants us fearful and hesitant and uncertain of Christ's earthly as well as spiritual ownership over this planet? Who benefits by telling Christians Christ's victory on the cross results in a world that slides into seclusion, apathy, apostasy and a silencing of the Great Commission?
Obviously, those who are trying to accomplish exactly that benefit by this interpretation of Scripture.
Alternately, who benefits by believing Christ rules today? I just read this short Q & A by R.C. Sproul and it's irrefutable...
There's only one supreme Lord over all the world, and that's God. We are told in the Old Testament that this whole concept of dominion was shared with Adam and Eve. Man was given dominion over the earth to be vice-regents for God, that is, vice kings to represent God's reign on this planet. Of course, we made a terrible mess out of it, and we were subjected more and more to the power of Satan. That power of Satan was dealt not just a significant blow but a fatal blow by Christ in his incarnation. We're told, first of all, that God the Father gives to Jesus all authority in heaven and on earth. In his ascension, Christ is seated at the right hand of God, where he is crowned as the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That was a tremendous blow to all worldly or satanic powers, principalities, and spiritual wickedness in high places. So if you ask me who is in dominion over this world right now, I think the New Testament is perfectly clear on that. The one who is in dominion is the Lord. The Lord God omnipotent reigns, and the Lord Christ reigns over this world right now. His kingdom may not be of this world, but it certainly includes this world, and Jesus has all authority over heaven and earth. Even at this moment, as I'm discussing this question, Satan's authority and power are limited and subordinate to the authority that is vested in Christ. Christ right now is the king of this earth. His kingdom is invisible, and not everybody acknowledges it. People are giving more allegiance to the prince of darkness than to the Prince of Peace, but that is an act of usurpation on the part of Satan. His power is restricted, limited, and temporal. What has happened briefly is this: The power and authority of Satan has been dealt a fatal blow by Christ. The Cross, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Ascension tremendously weakened any power or authority that Satan enjoyed, but it didn't annihilate him. That will come later, when Christ completes his work of redemption with the consummation of his kingdom. All things will be brought into captivity to him, and every knee will bow to him, including the fallen angels, who will bow in submission to his authority.
I'm tired by 7 PM. If this is Elliot's idea of what Clement's thought was "infirmed", then bring on old age.
BTW-I would steer clear of historicist.com if I were you. They have some rather strange teaching like:
Well, not everyone thinks so...
;O)
Amen!!!
With God, all things are "pausible".
"All things are pausible, but not all things are edifying."
Joseph of Arimathea established a church in England within 5 years of Jesus's death.
Red flag there -- that's a distinctive belief of British Israelism, isn't it?
Amen.
Yes, God has preserved His word, but it's no thanks to the many truly idiotic versions which have sprung up in order to...
•1) get around copyright law by changing the text just enough to warrant a new copyright and thus commissions, unlike the KJV which is not under copyright and freely published
•2) dilute the message of the gospel with hundreds of deletions
•3) slowly permeate the Scriptures with gender neutral pronouns and homosexual-pandering idioms
•4) incorrectly base Scripture on scraps of Alexandrian text which are of dubious origin (garbage cans and the Vatican library.)
•5) surreptitiously accept a variety of changes which are found in the Catholic Bibles and not found in the Geneva and KJV Bibles.
Westcott and Hort were spiritualists, men not fit to translate a grocery list, let alone Scripture. They were active members in England's Ghost Society who believed in reincarnation and questioned the Trinity.
I'm not a believer in the KJV because of some misplaced, racist sense of English superiority. Nor do I believe the KJV is inerrant. Only the originals are without error, and none exists, as God wills.
I do believe, however, that God ordained the compilation and publishing of His word at a time when Elizabethan English was at its most lush. It's no coincidence the KJV is Shakespeare's Bible.
Prose is defined as words in their best order. Poetry is defined as the best words in the best order. The King James Bible is poetry in order to most perfectly present and preserve His word and will.
Exactly as God ordained.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Yes. Some of the stuff on the site I wouldn’t post. Other stuff is legit. It’s like mixing a bunch of good and bad apples together that all look the same on the outside. It becomes hard to distinguish the truth from lies.
Amen. Psa.12:6-7.
Would you care to name them?
The NIV and NAS come from corrupt Greek texts.
Your comments are ridiculous.
There is no “minority” opinion on the comment by Irenaeus. His comment is a historical fact.
Irenaeus’ comment is one of many, and any opinions on it are irrelevant, and it is supported by a host of external comments seeing the events of Revelation as YET FUTURE, and it is supported by a host of internal evidence.
The new kid on the block, drE, for anyone who gives even a cursory glance at this issue, is preterism.
It amazes me that the preterist side is so sold out on their propaganda that they cannot even engage in honest discussion.
So Irenaeus's writings are not scholarship??? Is that your claim??? His works were circulated shortly after the circulation of the Book of Revelation, and yet his statement was never challenged. How about Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History Book III:
Chapter 17. The Persecution under Domitian.
"Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us."
Chapter 18. The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.
"1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
2. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: 3. "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."
4.To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. 5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ."
According to Eusebius, it was thus well known in even non-Christian circles just exactly when the persecution took place during which John had been exiled to the Isle of Patmos.
Perhaps Irenaeus and Victorinus and Eusebius should have published their works anonymously, then Preterists would probably believe them more readily.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.