Did Polycarp Know the Apostle John?

[Homer]

If the Apostle John (or apparently any Christian) lived past 70AD, then full preterism is shown to be false. What proof do the full preterists have that the following account of Irenaeus is not true?

Irenaeus regarded the memory of Polycarp as a link to the apostolic past. He relates how and when he became a Christian, and in his letter to Florinus stated that he saw and heard Polycarp personally in lower Asia. In particular, he heard the account of Polycarp's discussion with John and with others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus also reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, was consecrated a bishop, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus. He repeatedly emphasizes the very great age of Polycarp.

[dwilkins]

It would be interesting to know if Polycarp knew the Apostle John (as opposed to John the Presbyter, etc.), or if Irenaeus was telling the truth about it. But, whether he did or not does not disprove Full Preterism. It would challenge Ed Stevens' approach to it pretty strongly, but the majority of Full Preterists don't hold to a literal rapture in 66AD or 70AD. The majority allow for saints to have lived past 70AD, though they'd say that they were limited in number and anything they wrote has been lost. Assuming a conservative view of the canon, which says that everything in the NT was written before 70AD, there isn't anything known to us to have been written in the gap between that and about 105AD (presuming Ignatius is credible, which is seriously questioned by some). I think you expect your point to prove too much.

Doug

[Paidion]

It would be interesting to know if Polycarp knew the Apostle John (as opposed to John the Presbyter, etc.)...

Why would that be interesting? Would it make any difference? Didn't John the Presbyter write 2 and 3 John? The author identifies himself as "the presbyter".