Sorry I forgot to get back to that. There are a number of problems that I see with these characters. First, we have nothing really solid to say that what we know of them didn't come as hearsay through someone else. Second, nothing that they themselves wrote has survived as far as I know. Third, the opinion of Eusebius on Papias is interesting to me. It seems pretty negative and implies that Eusebius is not buying that Papias met the people he claimed to have met. In fact, a good number of the patristic writers buy into the 6,000 year eschatology which is unquestionably wrong. So, neither they nor the people they claim to have learned from (which might include the John of Ephesus, whoever he is) can be credible. Fourth, it's quite possible that the RCC has manipulated who we know about by controlling the dissemination of ancient writings, so it's very hard to know what was really going on in the era. Fifth, the timing of all of these writers is very sketchy, so tradition might say that they lived at a certain time but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Sixth, by "the event" I think you might be referring to a literal rapture. If there was one, I think you have an interesting point. But, if the rapture wasn't what we imagine as a literal rapture then maybe not. Of course, Ed would turn that around and say that it's actually less likely that people would write about it if there was a literal rapture because those who really knew what was going on would be gone. Finally, the fact that there is a 40 or so year gap between the destruction of Jerusalem and the first patristic writings makes it very difficult to know what the Apostles were teaching even if no one was raptured.TheEditor wrote:Hi Doug,
On the other thread I had asked that question and you had said you'd get back to it. My point was, if they lived when they are presumed to have lived, then one of them at least would have been alive when the big bus came that ya' all full preterists think it did. Why didn't they take it? Were they too young? Aren't children of Holy Ones called "holy" in Scripture? And as such, would they not have gone as well? Or at the very least, wouldn't they be well aware of the event and have recorded it?
As far as Polycarp's personal experience with this stuff, why would you think that someone supposedly born in 69AD would be able to remember or meaningfully experience the 66-70AD war? Actually, your question refers to one of the things about the pretrib rapture that I always thought was odd, which is that all children under the age of accountability would also be raptured. This is a curious piece of theology, which at least says that those kids lose their salvation at some point in their childhood. On the other hand, Covenant Theology via Calvinism claims that baptized children in Christian households are automatically sorta-saved. I don't think this makes much sense either. I'd say that the passage you refer to might have to do with acting more morally while growing up, but to say that they were spiritually regenerated takes you down a weird theological road. I hope that answers at least part of your question to me.