Partial Preterism and dating revelation

[Biblewriter]

You are confusing the wicked unbelieving Jews, now broken off from Israel, with Biblical Israel in Christ that fulfills Ezekiel 20 to a tee.

It is simple nonsense to even try to pretend that ANY Christian group EVER experienced the details of Ezekiel 20.

What Christian group EVER was moved from their home country to Israel, having the rebels purged from their midst as they came?

 

[Dave L]

Israel is global fulfilling the promise to Abraham. But God dissolved the church/state leaving only the church. Made up of believers in Christ only.

 

[timtams]

http://earlychristianwritings.com/ lists it as sometime between 130-200 A.D. I believe that is where I got the date.

Are you planning on retracting your claim about "four ancient sources" in light of the facts and your confusion between your source and the earlier Acts of John, in the interests of disclosure?

 

[timtams]

duplicate post by mistake

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

CF currently has a glitch that can cause double posting.
Do not hit the "post reply" button more than once when replying.....

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/posting-is-taking-a-long-time.8079739/
Posting is taking a long time

 

[Biblewriter]

Are you planning on retracting your claim about "four ancient sources" in light of the facts and your confusion between your source and the earlier Acts of John, in the interests of disclosure?

When you PROVE you claim.

 

[Biblewriter]

Are you planning on retracting your claim about "four ancient sources" in light of the facts and your confusion between your source and the earlier Acts of John, in the interests of disclosure?

Second post deleted.

 

[timtams]

When you PROVE you claim.

Click on the link to the Acts of John. Your quote isn't there. You've confused your sources. BTW, I know for me myself, if I make a claim, I would want to check it out for myself when I can easily do so, not tell others to prove it for me. Very telling.

 

[timtams]

When you PROVE you claim.

You obviously didn't bother to follow the link to the text you yourself linked to at http://earlychristianwritings.com/. If you did you would see that the name of Domitian isn't even mentioned in the Acts of John. Are you going to retract your claim?

 

[Biblewriter]

You obviously didn't bother to follow the link to the text you yourself linked to at http://earlychristianwritings.com/. If you did you would see that the name of Domitian isn't even mentioned in the Acts of John. Are you going to retract your claim?

When you read this, which I found simply by clicking on the links on THAT website, will YOU retract YOUR claim?

 

[Biblewriter]

You obviously didn't bother to follow the link to the text you yourself linked to at http://earlychristianwritings.com/. If you did you would see that the name of Domitian isn't even mentioned in the Acts of John. Are you going to retract your claim?

When you read this, which I found simply by clicking on the links on THAT website, will you r

 

[timtams]

I will gladly retract any statement I've made that is shown to be incorrect. Will you? Are you denying that the name of Domitian isn't even mentioned in the Acts of John? BTW your post doesn't make sense: can you edit it to provide the information that you think refutes me?

 

[Biblewriter]

I will gladly retract any statement I've made that is shown to be incorrect. Will you? Are you denying that the name of Domitian isn't even mentioned in the Acts of John? BTW your post doesn't make sense: can you edit it to provide the information that you think refutes me?

The current bug in pour forum is very problematic. I followed the links on the website we were discussed, and they led to an article that said EXACTLY what I posted. I will try to post this, and then will try again to call up that website and post a link to it.

 

[timtams]

Here is a direct link to the text:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsjohn.html

Domitian is mentioned by the editor in the introductory comments, in relation to a "a distinctly late Greek text," NOT in relation to the Acts of John, which a search will show does not even contain the name of Domitian. It appears you have confused the "late Greek text" with the early Acts of John.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here is a direct link to the text:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsjohn.html

Domitian is mentioned by the editor in the introductory comments, in relation to a "a distinctly late Greek text," NOT in relation to the Acts of John, which a search will show does not even contain the name of Domitian. It appears you have confused the "late Greek text" with the early Acts of John.

But the editor concluded that the "distinctly late Greek text" was a later copy of the SAME second century article.
in addition to the copy I quoted from in the "Early Church Fathers," the entire article is available online at http://gnosis.org/library/actjnthe.htm

 

[timtams]

But the editor concluded that the "distinctly late Greek text" was a later copy of the SAME second century article.
in addition to the copy I quoted from in the "Early Church Fathers," the entire article is available online at http://gnosis.org/library/actjnthe.htm

The editor concludes no such thing. Where do you get this claim? And why do you call a late text (the Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian) an "article"? Can I assume you have no formal training with respect to historical sources?

 

[Biblewriter]

The editor concludes no such thing. Where do you get this claim? And why do you call a late text (the Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian) an "article"? Can I assume you have no formal training with respect to historical sources?

A text is an individual copy of something previously written. Whether the original was an article, a book, or a sermon is trivial. The text from the second century was plainly discussed as a partial of an original that was assumed to have contained the material he postulated. And why did he postulate this? Because that material was contained in another text that was complete. The complete text was admittedly from a much later period. But the existence of this much older partial copy of the same original proves that the original was written some time in the second century.

Since you challenged the date, I have searched, and found several sources that date the original of this material to the second century. So there can be zero doubt that it is thought to date from the second century, which is exactly what I said. I did not and do not pass judgment on these opinions of those who trouble themselves with the ages of documents. I only report the opinions I find. If you want to argue with them, be my guest. But I am not going to retract what I said, because it was 100% accurate.

 

[timtams]

No, a text is the writing, not the manuscript it is written on, which may be from centuries later.


So let me get this straight, you read the following quote and you deduce from it that the editor claimed that the document you quoted was believed to be the lost second-century beginning of the Acts of John? Do you not see the word "lost" there?

The beginning of the book [the Acts of John] is lost. It probably related in some form a trial, and banishment of John to Patmos. A distinctly late Greek text printed by Bonnet (in two forms) as cc. 1-17 of his work tells how Domitian, on his accession, persecuted the Jews. They accused the Christians in a letter to him: he accordingly persecuted the Christians. ... All this is late: but an old story, known to Tertullian and to other Latin writers, but to no Greek, said that either Domitian at Rome or the Proconsul at Ephesus cast John into a caldron of boiling oil which did him no hurt. The scene of this was eventually fixed at the Latin Gate in Rome (hence the St. John Port Latin of our calendar, May 6th). We have no detailed account of this, but it is conjectured to have been told in the early part of the Leucian Acts. If so, it is odd that no Greek writer mentions it.

Note that the editor says the beginning of the Acts of John is LOST. That is, we don't have it anymore and therefore it isn't the document you quoted.

He nowhere states that the document you quoted formed the beginning of the Acts of John. He notes Bonnet's placement of a "late Greek text" (which you think is second century) at the beginning of the Leucian Acts, which might suggest that Bonnet thought it was the original ending. No scholar today thinks that and the editor didn't think that. Are you still going to insist that the document you quoted is the lost ending and that it MUST therefore be second century? Aren't you going to at least admit there's some doubt (as in no scholar accepts it) that that is the case?

There isn't even enough time in the Leucian Acts for a banishment late in Domitian's reign: in the Leucian Acts, John spends decades traveling Asia Minor. He only lived after Domitian for 3 years and so the late Greek text can't possibly be the lost beginning of the Leucian Acts.

 

[timtams]

I can tell you now that those sources you think date that document to the second century do not. You're confusing it with the real Acts of John.

 

[timtams]

If you were aware of the scholarly discussion on the lost ending of the Leucian Acts (e.g. Lalleman, Eliot et al) and what people say it may have been, you'd know that no-one thinks the late text you quoted is the lost beginning. So how are you still 100% confident that it is?

 

[Biblewriter]

If you were aware of the scholarly discussion on the lost ending of the Leucian Acts (e.g. Lalleman, Eliot et al) and what people say it may have been, you'd know that no-one thinks the late text you quoted is the lost beginning. So how are you still 100% confident that it is?

You have by no means convinced me. But I will research this more when I have time.