Approaches to Eschatology

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'll take a look when I get home later. I do believe some of the Olivet discourse is about AD 70, but I'm not a preterist.

Me neither............I am just a humble Disciple of the Lord Jesus..........

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Another thing, when you claim that the Syriac is from such and such a date, you are relying on a scholar. You have no clue. You can't ascertain the dating based on the Syriac handwriting of the manuscript, etc. You are being disingenuous here. How about I ask you for proof that the Peshitta was translated at such and such a time, what would you do? Cite a scholarly source. But you're going to get offended because unlike you, I actually cite my sources?

I do not even pretend to expertise in dating. I fact, I am highly agnostic abut most alleged dates of history. For in my many decades of study, I have seen too many contradictory reports in ancient documents.

So I will clearly recognize that whenever I state an alleged date, I am only stating what those who addict themselves to this particular branch of study have concluded. For this reason, I usually state dates in a form I have failed to use in this thread, which is "is thought to date from..." or some such statement as that.

But I have not only observed statements made by professed "scholars" that appear to be intentionally deceptive. I have also repeatedly come up against statements made by such men that were unquestionably incorrect, but which were of a nature that anyone that had studied the subject as extensively as they claimed to have done, could not even possibly be unaware of the information that disproved their allegation. So I have concluded that such studies are all too often, not only intentionally deceptive, but, on occasion, outright falsehood. That is, flatly stating as fact, things that they HAD to know were not true.

And that is why I reserve judgment on allegations about fine details of ancient documents until such time as I am able to personally examine them. I have just seen too many times when my examination revealed PROOF that what was being alleged was simply not true.

 

[timtams]

And that is why I reserve judgment on allegations about fine details of ancient documents until such time as I am able to personally examine them. I have just seen too many times when my examination revealed PROOF that what was being alleged was simply not true.

Okay, I'll rephrase: "the Syriac text is thought to be as early as the fourth century."

 

[Biblewriter]

I am not avoiding the question. I simply overlooked it, as there are multiple issues to address in your post. To answer your question, yes, I have the Latin and Greek texts. I don't need anyone else to tell me what they say.

Will you share the exact wording of the last two sentences of "Against Heresies," book v, chapter 30, paragraph 3, in both Greek and Latin, with citation for where they were copied from? I would indeed like to examine them, but am not willing to spend the money for my own copies, as I am now a retiree, living on a fixed income.

 

[timtams]

Will you share the exact wording of the last two sentences of "Against Heresies," book v, chapter 30, paragraph 3, in both Greek and Latin, with citation for where they were copied from? I would indeed like to examine them, but am not willing to spend the money for my own copies, as I am now a retiree, living on a fixed income.

Yes, you can find Migne's edition for free online. It has the Greek (where extant) and Latin. https://books.google.com/books?id=JwYRAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's on column 1207.

 

[Biblewriter]

Junod's book is a primary source. He provides quotations translated into French. It's not my fault it has never been translated into English. I read texts in the original Greek and Latin, and obviously citing those volumes wouldn't help you. It's not my problem your research is limited to often outdated English translations that you can find in public domain works on Google Books.

My current research is indeed so limited. But in the past it was not. I spent well over thirty years researching ancient documents in of one of the largest University Libraries in the world. (Kent State University Library, in Kent, Ohio, which at that time was the fifth largest library in the world.)

 

[timtams]

k

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes, you can find Migne's edition for free online. It has the Greek (where extant) and Latin. Patrologiae cursus completus

It's on column 1207.

Thank you VERY much. I had downloaded multiple copies, only to find that they all ended at the end of book 2. I will find this very useful. My studies of ancient Christian teaching did not began until after I had retired. So I have been limited in access to what I could find online or what I was in the past able to obtain through interlibrary loan. But even that resource has now dried up for me. For three years ago I moved to a city whose library does not participate in that program.

 

[Biblewriter]

Okay, I am sorry for being offensive.

Thank you for your apology, which is cheerfully accepted. And please accept my own apology for being somewhat abrasive. I sometimes get too tied up in my many debates. We can all learn from each other.

 

[timtams]

Here's a useful table of contents for the Greek Patrologia:

Patrologia Graeca (PG) PDF’s

And for the Latin series:

Patrologia Latina (PL) PDF’s

It goes by the original language of the work. E.g., even though Irenaeus is mostly preserved in Latin, it's found in the Greek series because it was originally written in Greek.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here's a useful table of contents for the Greek Patrologia:

Patrologia Graeca (PG) PDF’s

And for the Latin series:

Patrologia Latina (PL) PDF’s

It goes by the original language of the work. E.g., even though Irenaeus is mostly preserved in Latin, it's found in the Greek series because it was originally written in Greek.

Thank you.

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[Biblewriter]

This one is a thorn in both sides of the debate. Clement also said that John the Evangelist resided in Ephesus after the death of the tyrant, which, on any interpretation of the tyrant, must mean after AD 68. Gentry tries arguing that Clement only referred to "apostolic revelation," i.e., writing scripture, but Clement can't be limited this way.

On the other side, it clearly implies that the ministry of the Twelve ended by 68, and attempts to explain this away have been weak (e.g. Hill claims that Clement might have had a temporary memory lapse and forgot about John).

In my many years of researching historical writings, I have found almost no events for which the various sources agree. The only one I can remember offhand is Sennacherib's attack on king Hezekiah. In this one single case, I cannot remember even one account that contradicts any of the others. (Except, of course, that Sennacherib did not admit that 185,000 of his soldiers mysteriously died in a single night.)

So I do not even find it concerning that the records do not agree. This is only what is to be expected in considering historical documents. Or, for that matter, documents on current events. On any days, the various news sources do not even agree on what happened yesterday.

 

[timtams]

So I do not even find it concerning that the records do not agree.

But both statements come from Clement.

 

[Biblewriter]

But both statements come from Clement.

Actually, close to a typical problem in attempting to establish a historical fact.