Old Shepherd, please allow me to prove you wrong. Here goes...
OS SAID:
At this (Link) are all the known writings of Papias. There is no reference to John in those writings!
GW:
Not only does John Walvoord assert that Papias testified to this as I listed before, but so also does New Advent.org assert this:
"A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)
OS SAID:
A blatantly false statement [that Eusebius didn't believe St. John wrote Revelation.].
GW:
Wrong again. Eusebius believed that Revelation was written by a John the Presbyter, not the apostle. Eusebius says:
"This confirms the truth of the story of those who have said that there were two of the same name in Asia, and that there are two tombs at Ephesus both still called John's.
This calls for attention: for it is probable that the second (unless anyone prefer the former) saw the revelation which passes under the name of John." (Ecc History 3:38:5; 3:29:1,2,5,6)
So while Eusebius knew of Irenaeus' attribution of the book to St. John the apostle, Eusebius disagrees with that citation and attributes the writing of the book of Revelation to another John--namely, John the Presbyter.
OS SAYS:
False! No such work among the known writings of the early church [speaking of Epiphanius, Heresies, 51:12]. Three ECF wrote works with Heresies", in the title, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, but none of the works makes this statement.
GW:
Ouch, you continue to hurt yourself over and over. Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403) wrote explicitly that John was banished under Nero. One of two of his specific lines on this subject reads:
"[John], prophesied in the time of Claudius [Nero]...the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed."
This is from his
Heresies 51:12,33. You claim this work does not exist, but you are in error. The work is known as the "Panarion," and each heresy Epiphanius addresses is numbered in order;
hence it is customary to quote the "Panarion" as follows: Epiphanius, Haer. N (the number of the heresy)--which I have listed as Heresies 51:12,33
OS SAID:
I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you are quoting some other source which makes this false statement. The alternative is you deliberately posted information you knew to be false. But, here is what Irenaeus actually said with a link to his works. I doubt very seriously if this quote is in Youngs concordance, since it is so easily verifiable.
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.
GW REPLIES:
And, again, here is Robert Young's comment on Irenaeus' quote:
Robert Young (1885)
"[Revelation] was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)
OS SAID:
If preterism is not just another latter day heretical religious group, ala JW, LDS, WWCG, etc., there should be an extensive history of their beliefs and practices. The book stores and libraries should be full of well documented, and researched books supporting these beliefs. Where are those books? Where is that history?
GW:
Enjoy the volumes of preterist statements and beliefs in Church History!
Christian History and its Preterist Presuppositions
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html
OS:
Why is it that the only proof for these beliefs are a few demonstrably false, inadequate, misquotes and fabricated sources and quotes?
GW:
I have demonstrated that you spoke in ignorance. It is you that has put forth the fabrications and misquotes. My sources are vindicated, and you were in error.
Finally, I leave you with this quote from the great Church Historian:
Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion--the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)."
--(Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)
"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)