Polycarp

[Guest kingdombrat]

From Ephesus he wrote the three epistles attributed to him. John was allegedly banished by the Roman authorities to the Greek island of Patmos, where, according to tradition, he wrote the Book of Revelation. ... He is said to have lived to an old age, dying at Ephesus sometime after AD 98, during the reign of Trajan.

[Guest kingdombrat]

13 minutes ago, Alive said:

How many times was Paul imprisoned for the Gospel?

Anyway---my conclusions on an early date are largely internal to scripture, but Ken Gentry in 'Before the Fall of Jerusalem' draws from a vast store of resources both for and against the early writing. I have seldom read such an honest and complete debating on both sides by the same author. Its well worth a read. There is much to learn--if nothing else--a ton of great history.

Let's say Ken Gentry is correct.  Why wouldn't Polycarp mention we're in the Mill Reign living as Kings and Judges?   Surely, as a direct Disciple of John, he would know what time and place he was in.  And if he did not, John, surely would've told him.   One would think there was written documentation claiming they were experiencing the Mill Reign!

Edited May 9, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Alive]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

Let's say Ken Gentry is correct.  Why wouldn't Polycarp mention we're in the Mill Reign living as Kings and Judges?   Sure, as a direct Disciple of John, he would know what time and place he was in.  And if he did not, John, surely would've told him.   One would think there was written documentation claiming they were experiencing the Mill Reign!

In human experience--things commonly understood don't need to be specifically mentioned--so that argument from logic doesn't hold one way or the other.

[Guest kingdombrat]

41 minutes ago, Josheb said:

No. 

The problem is one of inspiration. Polycarp, Papias, and the other ECFs were not inspired. The holy writings ended with the apostles and it is very clear the ECFs did not know a lot. It took the better part of four hundred years and a lot of vigorous prayer and debate to form core doctrines and........ eschatology is NOT core. Remember: what we call the "canon," what we call the "Bible" had not been compiled in Polycarp's day. Even what constituted the holy writings was a matter of dispute and debate. Furthermore, the ECFs often made mistakes. There isn't a single one of them that was wholly correct on all matters. In fact, Origen was once called a heretic and removed as priest! Augustine, Ambrose, and Chrysostom all had conflicts with Jerome. Clement said baptism made one perfect and drinking the Eucharist wine made one immortal. Polycarp was burned at the stake!

I'm not using it as an inspired text, but as a historical text that reveals [no proof] of anyone living after 70 A.D. like it's the Mill Reign.

Quote

So, no, there is no reason to imagine any of the ECFs had a clue what had happened. 

I only am using John's Disciples, not everyone else you're tossing in.   And they do hold historical value as much, if not more, than the TRAITOR JOSEPHUS many are using for their false doctrines.

Quote

Why? Most Christians have no need of the ECFs. Remember Ephesians 4: God gave some (not all) to be apostles, evangelists, prophets, preachers, and teachers. A lot of sheep; only some shepherds. Furthermore, if you've read the ECFs then you know there are problems with every single one of them and their chief value is for understanding the evolution of Church doctrine after what we call the canon was closed. Anyone reading the ECFs also knows and understands 1) eschatology was not settled and 2) eschatology was not chief.

Once again, how I am using these writings are for historical value only.

Quote

And kingdombrat, why would you think a forum mostly populated by Prots would consider extra-Biblical RCC sources doctrinally persuasive? 

If a few here can use the TRAITOR Josephus/as equal to Judas, then I can use John's Disciples for a historical timeline.

Quote

"Mill Reign"? 

The 1,000 year Reign of Christ.

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Justin Adams]

I agree with Josh. If one ACTUALLY reads the ECF's accounts, one will see glaring errors. They are not in any way shape or form inspired. The modern church seems to promote snippets of 'helpful' information and proof texting just to support an eschatology, which in some cases bleeds into their theology; such as Dallas Theological Seminary and its support and dogmatism about Dispensational ideas that were promoted by Darby. That is why he founded DTS.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Alive]

10 hours ago, Josheb said:

No. 

The problem is one of inspiration. Polycarp, Papias, and the other ECFs were not inspired. The holy writings ended with the apostles and it is very clear the ECFs did not know a lot. It took the better part of four hundred years and a lot of vigorous prayer and debate to form core doctrines and........ eschatology is NOT core. Remember: what we call the "canon," what we call the "Bible" had not been compiled in Polycarp's day. Even what constituted the holy writings was a matter of dispute and debate. Furthermore, the ECFs often made mistakes. There isn't a single one of them that was wholly correct on all matters. In fact, Origen was once called a heretic and removed as priest! Augustine, Ambrose, and Chrysostom all had conflicts with Jerome. Clement said baptism made one perfect and drinking the Eucharist wine made one immortal. Polycarp was burned at the stake!

So, no, there is no reason to imagine any of the ECFs had a clue what had happened. 

Lot's of preachers and teachers make this argument, but they do so without reason and most of them do so as a red herring. 
 

22 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Yesterday--I wrote a post indicating these things, but decided to delete it and not post. I am glad I made that choice as you have done a better job than I.

The gist of it is that the canon didn't yet exist and these guys were still figuring things out and there was much disagreement across the board. These things are glaringly obvious.

And....you could put 10 brothers in a room with the Apostle John listening to him and later on have 10 disparate recollections. This is why the Lord has preserved the scriptures for us.

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Unless the millennial reign was construed in ways different than some do in modernity.

This new Doctrine is using the well known Judas [Josephus] accounts.  I am using a [DIRECT DISCIPLE] to the one person who wrote about the Apocalypse.   How can one be a Student of the one who wrote the Apocalypse and not know the true meaning?

 

That's illogical!

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

The salient point of my post was ignored. Whether or not Polycarp is used as an historical reference..... it is NOT reasonable to think Polycarp is useful in understanding Revelation 20's millennial reign. 

Why not?

His writings and position John set him up in is to continue the work Christ began.   He is the [PERFECT THERMOMETER] to see if they were living like Rulers and Judges with Christ during Christ's Reign.

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Yes, I understood the words "Mill Reign" were a reference to Revelation 20. I am asking why an eschatological op outside the eschatology board where it belongs. 

I don't know other than I created this thread in the wrong section.

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

I agree with Josh. If one ACTUALLY reads the ECF's accounts, one will see glaring errors. They are not in any way shape or form inspired. The modern church seems to promote snippets of 'helpful' information and proof texting just to support an eschatology, which in some cases bleeds into their theology; such as Dallas Theological Seminary and its support and dogmatism about Dispensational ideas that were promoted by Darby. That is why he founded DTS.

Is the Book of Mark relevant to our Holy Bible?

WHY?

Mark is the ECF ACCOUNT of Peter?

 

How can Mark, the ECF to Peter be acceptable, How can Paul's Disciples be relevant, but because John's Disciples historically devalue the stances of some, suddenly they are not qualified?

 

That sure seems awful HYPOCRITICAL to me!

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

13 minutes ago, Alive said:

Yesterday--I wrote a post indicating these things, but decided to delete it and not post. I am glad I made that choice as you have done a better job than I.

The gist of it is that the canon didn't yet exist and these guys were still figuring things out and there was much disagreement across the board. These things are glaringly obvious.

And....you could put 10 brothers in a room with the Apostle John listening to him and later on have 10 disparate recollections. This is why the Lord has preserved the scriptures for us.

But did you read Polycarp's letter?

 

He was asked by the Church to explain the [Roles] of Church leaders.   All Polycarp does is quote Paul and the other Apostles.   How is that irrelevant?   Aren't we always quoting Paul and the other Apostles outside of Christ Himself?

[Alive]

6 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

But did you read Polycarp's letter?

 

He was asked by the Church to explain the [Roles] of Church leaders.   All Polycarp does is quote Paul and the other Apostles.   How is that irrelevant?   Aren't we always quoting Paul and the other Apostles outside of Christ Himself?

I didn't say that Polycarp is irrelevant. I am suggesting that he is not reliable.