1
Dear Mr. Ed, “The Cup”
“Did John die before 70 AD” by
Rev. Stephen Whitsett B.A.
After reading Ed Stevens paper on “Did John Live beyond 70 AD” he acknowledges the need to prove John died before 70 AD in order for preterism to stand on its own two feet. I presented him my first letter and so the correspondence went back and forth. Here in is that correspondence.
Dear Mr. Ed Stevens
Over the last six months I have studied every book from “Before Jerusalem Fell” to “Did
John Live beyond 70AD?” to Russel’s, “Parousia”, Gentry, Demar, and on and on it goes, including to listening to the debates…
Like a pyramid built upside down from the point up the whole argument for Preterism balances on a tiny point that has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is unlike the case for Christ resurrection which can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt.
After reading the many statements of early church fathers we do recognize they were not perfect in “every” statement made. Concerning statement about John being alive after 70AD is predicated on the first point of the dating for the writing of Revelation which seems to go hand in
Dear Mr. Ed

2 hand, if you can prove John died before 70AD then there is no way for it to be written after
70AD. The proof provided or internal evidence you presented comes from one verse,
John 20:22 you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Are ye able to drink of the cup ... - To drink of a cup, in the Scriptures, often signifies to be afflicted, or to be punished, Matthew 26:39; Isaiah 51:17, Isaiah 51:22; Psalm 73:10; Psalm
75:8; Jeremiah 25:15; Revelation 16:9. The figure is taken from a feast, where the master of a feast extends a cup to those present. Thus God is represented as extending to his Son a cup filled with a bitter mixture - one causing deep sufferings, John 18:11. This was the cup to which he referred . Barnes Notes on the Bible
The cup does not mean “death” but the bitterness of the liquid being drunk… scripture does not say the “of martyrdom” this is inserted as an assumption and interpretation put in to the text. Death is “relief” from the bitter pain and suffering one experience under the “tribulation”.
When Christ said it is finished, it also included His torment or punishment for sin was finished.
Are you willing to put all your eggs into one basket based on an assumption? I understand the necessity of changing the date of the writing of Revelation so it can fit your
“eschatology” as this is in essence what is being done but it provides the most unstable of foundation for a doctrine, no theology or doctrine should rest on a single point but upon the combined understanding of scripture but in the case of “Preterism” it’s entire case is built on speculation and assumption.
What I find incredible is that John Noe to Don Preston will use the church fathers to establish claims of Church History as being collaborated by more than just one voice as proof of historical truth but in regards to their testimony of John living beyond 70AD is so easily dismissed. Statements from Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Hegesippus, and Tertullian as recorded by Eusebius, in Church History Book 3 repeat over and over again that John lived beyond 70AD.
In citing one statement from Papias, to over ride the statement of these others is tad amount to being incredulous. As I said they all made mistakes at one point or another but the overwhelming evidence even from Eusebius in his writings verses the writing of Papias establishes Eusebius as
Dear Mr. Ed

3 being even more trustworthy. The case Gentry makes for undermining the church fathers and there reliability is like a balloon stretched too far, one extra gulp of hot air will burst the bubble.
Concerning the date of Papias writing, there is Irenaeus' statement, later in the 2nd century, that Papias was "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." (Adversus Haereses V 33.4) If Polycarp was in fact born not later than AD 69, then there may be no reason to depend on a further, but disputed tradition that Papias shared in the martyrdom of Polycarp also we are to assume Polycarp would have known John in his own later years which places that relationship after 70AD(ca AD 155). In sum, the fact that Irenaeus thought of Papias as Polycarp's contemporary and "a man of the old time," together with the affinity between the religious tendencies described in the fragment from Papias's Preface quoted by Eusebius and those reflected in the Epistles of Ignatius and of Polycarp, all point to his having flourished in the first quarter of the 2nd century and known to John.
Indeed, Eusebius, who deals with Papias along with Clement and Ignatius (rather than
Polycarp) under the reign of Trajan, and before referring at all to Hadrian's reign, suggests that he wrote "as early as 110 and probably no later than the early 130s, with several scholars opting for the earlier end of the spectrum". No known fact is inconsistent with c. 60-135 as the period of
Papias's life. It should be noted that, though he was probably writing as an old man in Hierapolis, the enquiries he made took place a long time before had, and some of his eyewitnesses could well have met Jesus or the Apostles, or both. Eusebius (3.36) calls him "bishop" of Hierapolis, but whether with good ground is uncertain. In this putative capacity as bishop, Papias was supposedly succeeded by Abercius of Hieropolis.
Papias Bishop of Hierapolis and Apostolic Father called by St. Irenæus "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time". He wrote a work in five books, logion kyriakon exegesis, of which all but some fragments is lost. We learn something of the contents from the preface, part of which has been preserved by Eusebius (III, xxix):
“
I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down
Dear Mr. Ed

4 from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the
Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.” Church History Book 3
“
Domitian , having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.
Chapter 18.
1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: Domitian also, did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and
who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter even recalled those whom he had banished.
10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, days, voted that been unjustly banished them.
11.
according to the writers that record the history of those
Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had
should return to their homes and have their property restored to
It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus , according to an ancient Christian tradition.
Dear Mr. Ed

Chapter 23. Narrative Concerning John the Apostle.
1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.
2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.
3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies , writes as follows: And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan .
4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words: But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.
5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? Indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and read the account which runs as follows:
6. Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the apostle , which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.
The time of John's death has also been given in a general way, but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates (who was bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor, bishop of Rome. In this epistle he mentions him together with the apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words:
3. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out
Dear Mr. Ed
5

6 all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and moreover John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. He also sleeps at Ephesus.
Irenaeus tells us that the Apostle lived at Ephesus until the time of Trajan, that he wrote the Apocalypse in the last days of Domitian. Irenaeus had heard Polycarp relate his reminiscences of the Apostle. Justin, who was at Ephesus about 130-5, asserts that the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypse (and therefore the head of the Asiatic Churches). But if the Apostle lived at Ephesus at so late a date, (and it cannot be doubted with any show of reason), he would naturally be the most important of Papias's witnesses. Yet if Eusebius is right, it would seem that John the Presbyter was his chief informant, and that they had no sayings of the Apostle to relate. Again, "The Presbyter" who wrote I and II John has the name of John in all manuscripts, and is identified with the Apostle by Irenaeus and Clement, and is certainly (by internal evidence) the writer of the fourth Gospel, which is attributed to the Apostle by
Irenaeus and all tradition. Again, Polycrates of Ephesus, in recounting the men who were the glories of Asia, has no mention of John the presbyter, but of "John, who lay upon the
Lord's breast", undoubtedly is meaning the Apostle.
A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". It is not possible that Papias should really have said this, otherwise Eusebius must have quoted it and Irenaeus could not have been ignorant of it.
There is certainly some error in the quotation. Either something has been omitted, or St.
John Baptist was meant. That St. John is mentioned twice in the list of Papias's authorities is explained by the distinction between his earlier sayings which the Presbyters could repeat and the last utterances of his old age which were reported by visitors from Ephesus.
IF this statement is true about the Jews killing John it refutes the idea he died at the hands of Rome, and it places no time frame of when it would have happened… Because a list is made of assassinated presidents does not mean they followed one another….
“At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after
Dear Mr. Ed

7 the death of Domitian from his exile on the island. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria”. Church History Book three chapter 23
This one statement alone discredits any attempt to place John’s death prior to 70 AD.
Can you provide one compelling statement as evidence why Irenaeus and Clement would be wrong or at the worse “lying?” Why should we doubt Eusebias? Compelling and compiled statements of church fathers laying claim to John living after 70 AD? OH I understand the argument laid out to discredit their credibility and this is what I find “wrong”, that we have to discredit others to be “right”, Not that this is not what argument is about, but facts must be used to prove truth.. arguments are not truth…
Gentry states in “Before Jerusalem Fell” page 44 “Despite a confident use of these witnesses by late date proponents, we will demonstrate that a careful scrutiny of the material reveals that the evidence is too diverse to lead to any assured conclusion as to this date”. ..Much of the late date external evidence is, in fact, inconclusive at best
”….An argument is just that, an argument in favor of your position, a hope to discredit the evidence on the other side to establish precedence for you argument being “right” and the other wrong. (Gentry never address’s the statements in his book quoted above by Eusebius).
Gentry also point out as evidence for doubt is this one statement, from “Against
Heresies”
“ We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of
Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.
For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of
Domitian’s reign”.
In which he misses the point all together, whether it was the vision seen or whether it was
Dear Mr. Ed

8
John who was seen, both are being placed as being seen during the time of “Domitian”. (Who preceded Nerva so this excludes confusion of calling Nero by his family name “Domitian”)
It could also mean the book was seen during the time of Domitian but that is not likely intended in the text. With the collaborating evidence of the surrounding passages Eusebius, is establishing the fact that is was John who was seen and alive during the time of Domitian, the one who saw the “apocalypse”.
Still what it all boils down to is the necessity of discrediting, reinterpretating, and redefining overwhelming statements made by men of faith in order to prove your conclusions as being “right” then trying to establish supremacy on something so shaky and further the dating of
Revelation was never contested until the idea of Preterism came along.
Preterism in my opinion makes the same mistake of Dispensationalist but in reverse order. Dispensationalist cannot see that Luke defines what the “abomination of desolation” is, coupled with the two questions of Mathew 24 “when will this be” the tearing down of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 AD, but with Revelation being written after 70AD so as not to confuse the events of 70 AD with Revelation, there is no partial fulfillment of Revelation in 70 AD.
Dispensationist make the mistake of looking forward to all of Mathew 24 being fulfilled, while
Preterist claim Mathew 24 was all fulfilled in 70 AD.
Stephen Whitsett
FROM ED STEVENS] Thanks for sharing your critical thoughts about the Preterist view, and about the death of John in the Neronic persecution of AD 64. I need to point out that your critique discredits itself at a number of places with its typos, poor sentence structure, lack of proper punctuation, illogical arguments, inconsistencies, and selfcontradictions. Other than that, though, you expressed yourself pretty clearly! :-)
My response to your critique will not deal with the details of your arguments, but rather challenge the presuppositions and hermeneutical principles that you are using to arrive at your conclusions.
Dear Mr. Ed

9
First of all, every one of us Christians need to admit that UNINSPIRED church father writings (i.e., hereafter referred to as “tradition”) are not (and can never be) on a par with or above Scripture in veracity or authority. Tradition simply cannot trump Scripture.
Scripture always trumps tradition. History and tradition can only explain and support scripture, and can never overturn scripture. Unless you want to kiss the Pope’s ring and join the Roman Catholic Church, you should readily acknowledge this foundational biblical principle. But unfortunately, most of the arguments you make in your paper are coming from that Roman Catholic notion that history and tradition are on a par with, or above Scripture. You are letting late second century and following church writers tell you how to interpret the book of Revelation, rather than letting the other inspired writers in the Bible teach us how interpret it. Thus, you are letting “your traditions” interpret (i.e., invalidate) the Word of God.
For instance, I get the impression that if Irenaeus and Eusebius were proven to be wrong, that it would greatly upset your faith (if not overthrow it completely). But it is not proper to put that much confidence in those uninspired and fallible church writings. It may well be that ALL of the church father writings after AD 70 are unreliable, including
Papias. I don't trust any of them unless they are backed up by clear scriptural principles.
However, it seems to me that you are saying in net effect: "I know that is what scripture says about James and John drinking the cup of martyrdom (in Matt 20 & Mark 10), but it simply cannot mean that because we have traditions which teach otherwise (e.g.,
Irenaeus and Eusebius).” That is letting uninspired traditions dictate our interpretation of scripture and refute scripture, rather than letting scripture itself tell us what it means.
That is what the scribes and Pharisees did. They used their rabbinical traditions to invalidate scripture. They did not like what scripture said, so they used their traditions to reinterpret scripture in conformity with their own opinions and wishful thinking. They let their traditions dictate their interpretations of scripture, just like you are doing here, with the same result -- "invalidating the Word of God by your traditions" and "you do many things such as that" in your paper here. Note what Jesus said to the scribes and
Pharisees about this:
Dear Mr. Ed

10
Mark 7:5
The Pharisees and the scribes asked [Jesus], “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders...?”
Mark 7:6 And [Jesus] said to them, ...
Mark 7:8 “...Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Mark 7:9 “...You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition....
Mark 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
You ridicule my position on the death of John before AD 70, which is based directly on two parallel accounts in Scripture (Matthew 20 and Mark 10), and then use
“your traditions” to invalidate what those two Scriptures clearly teach, but offer NO scripture and nothing but proven-to-be-fallacious late second century tradition to support your position. For instance, Irenaeus taught that Jesus was 50 years old when He died.
How can you believe anything else he says when he makes such an obvious error as that? Yet you seem to be more willing to believe Irenaeus than to follow Scripture.
When we have a clear scripture (a "thus sayeth the Lord") for something, no amount of later uninspired and fallible tradition can refute it, not even Irenaeus or
Eusebius or Papias. That is why we need to focus our best exegetical efforts on understanding what Scripture actually teaches, rather than on how to twist scripture to make it harmonize with our beloved church father writings!
I understand why futurists WANT to believe that Irenaeus and Eusebius are correct, and that Papias is wrong. It is because it supports their particular interpretation of the book of Revelation. But we should never let our WANT TO's get in the way of
Biblical Truth. The truth is seldom (if ever) found in what we WANT TO believe, but rather in what Scripture actually teaches.
Our task as interpreters of Scripture is NOT to twist Scripture to make it mean what we WANT it to mean, or what we NEED it to mean, but rather to see what it
ACTUALLY means inside its context, and then accept that truth and follow it, no matter
Dear Mr. Ed

11 what the personal cost.
The question here is NOT, "What sayeth tradition?" but rather, "What sayeth
Scripture?" That is where our focus needs to be. At least Papias tried to do that when he pointed to Matthew and Mark, which is more than I can say for Irenaeus or Eusebius who had something to gain from their distorted views of church history.
We do have two biblical witnesses to confirm what Jesus said to both James and
John. The only question is determining what Jesus meant by those words in Matt. 20 and Mark 10. And we have inspired commentary from Luke in the book of Acts to help us understand what Jesus meant. No amount of traditions can ever trump scripture. In all four gospels we see clearly what “drinking the cup” meant for Jesus. It was death.
Notice that Jesus said to both James and John, “My Cup [not a generic cup of persecution, but the specific cup of martyrdom] you (both) shall drink!” Notice he did not say maybe. He said they definitely would drink the same cup that He was about to drink.
We know what His cup was (death). And we know what cup James drank (death – Acts
12:1ff). In two out of the three cases of cupdrinking, it was death. It doesn’t take any intelligence to figure out what the third cup would be. Jesus had already told both
James and John that they would both drink
“My cup”. Follow the logic here:
1. Jesus said th ey both would drink His same cup (“My cup”)
2. The cup that Jesus drank was death (martyrdom)
Therefore, they would have to die a martyrs death like Jesus
1. Jesus said they both would drink His same cup (“My cup”)
2. The cup that James drank was also death (martyrdom)
Therefore, John would have to die a martyr’s death also.
Do you catch the power of that? Simple gradeschool logic. Not rocket science.
And since it is coming from inspired scripture (instead of fallible tradition) it carries all the weight we need to put on it. No amount of uninspired fallible tradition can EVER invalidate it.
So, it appears that the differences between you and I are over what we consider
Dear Mr. Ed

12 authoritative (scripture or tradition). You appear to prefer traditions over Scripture. You let the traditions about John inform your understanding of Scripture. You determine the meaning of Matt 20 and Mark 10 on the basis of what tradition tells you, rather than from an exegesis of Scripture inside its context and in the context of the rest of scripture
(such as the other gospels and Acts 12:1ff). You are letting uninspired tradition invalidate the Word of God (cf. Mark 7 above).
You can have your traditions — I will stick with Scripture. Even if I had only one
Scripture stacked up against your thousand traditions, I will still take Scripture over tradition any day and every day. But we have TWO synoptic scriptures here to help us, not just one. At the mouth of two or more, every fact is determined.
How many verses of scripture does it take to establish something as true? Can any amount of UNINSPIRED historical testimony and tradition EVER overturn
INSPIRED Scripture? Our interpretations of Scripture could be mistaken, but Scripture itself cannot be broken, otherwise Christianity itself is falsified. And that is exactly what you are doing here with tradition (like Irenaeus and Eusebius). You are setting up your traditions against scripture, and invalidating scripture by your traditions, just like the
Scribes and Pharisees did (Mark 7).
The same principle applies regarding the Preterist view in general. The Preterist view is based directly on Scripture. The TIME statements and the EXPECTATION statements of scripture are the foundation of everything we preterists believe . We use the TIME statements (imminence indicators) to show that Jesus and the apostles believed and taught that the Second Coming, General Resurrection, and Final
Judgment were going to occur in their generation: “some of those standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” (Matt 16:27-28). They literally expected to “see” Him coming in the clouds with His angels before they died.
But “your traditions” tell you that the Second Coming did not take place in that generation as Jesus prom ised it would. Once again, you are letting “your traditions” invalidate not only the Word of God, but the credibility and integrity of Christ Himself.
You are saying that Jesus and the apostles were mistaken when they made those promises and predictions, and that they were therefore FALSE PROPHETS and FALSE
TEACHERS.
Dear Mr. Ed

13
If that is the case, then we cannot trust anything else they had to say about morals and ethics and salvation, and their stories about the resurrection become mere mythology and superstition. Christianity is totally unraveled by your preference of tradition over the Word of God.
Instead, in order to preserve the integrity of Christ and Scripture, I would highly recommend that you retract your misplaced allegiance to Scripture, and throw your whole devotion upon Scripture instead.
Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.”
23
He said to them,
“You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.
” Mathew 20
Are ye able to drink of the cup ... - To drink of a cup, in the Scriptures, often signifies to be afflicted, or to be punished, Matthew 26:39 ; Isaiah 51:17 , Isaiah 51:22 ; Psalm 73:10 ; Psalm
75:8 ; Jeremiah 25:15 ; Revelation 16:9 . The figure is taken from a feast, where the master of a feast extends a cup to those present. Thus God is represented as extending to his Son a cup filled with a bitter mixture - one causing deep sufferings, John 18:11 . This was the cup to which he referred.
As to the term cup, it was a common figure, by which they expressed calamities, judgments, desolation, etc.
“Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with? meaning his reproaches, sorrows, sufferings, and death; which because of the disagreeableness of them, he compares to a bitter cup of vengeance, wrath, fury, and indignation; and because they were appointed to him, and allotted for him, they were his portion, therefore he expresses them by a "cup"; and because they were so many and great, of such an overwhelming nature, that he seemed to be plunged into them, and covered with them, therefore he likens them to a "baptism" and which the ordinance of water baptism, performed by immersion, is a lively representation of. Now Christ suggests to these disciples, that instead of indulging their ambitious desires of worldly grandeur, that they would do well to consider what a bitter cup he had to drink of, and what a sea of
Dear Mr. Ed

14 sorrows and sufferings he was about to be plunged into, and drenched in; and whether they could think of enduring anything of the like kind, for his sake, which was most likely to be in a short time, what they would be called unto, and not to honours, ease, and pleasure; and what they must be sure, more or less, to undergo, before they entered the everlasting kingdom of glory:
(d) Taking the cup is figurative speech for that which is contained in the cup. And again, the
Hebrews understand by the word cup, sometimes the manner of punishment which is rendered to sin, as Ps 11:6, or the joy that is given to the faithful, as Ps 23:5, and sometimes a lot or condition, as Ps 16:5.
Are ye able to drink of the cup? The cup is an Old Testament image of a man's lot, or portion, as holding what of life God pours out for him. See Ps 11:6 16:05 23:05 73:10:00
75:08:00 116:13:00 Eze 23:33.
20:22 Ye know not what is implied in being advanced in my kingdom, and necessarily prerequired thereto. All who share in my kingdom must first share in my sufferings. Are you able and willing to do this? Both these expressions, The cup, the baptism, are to be understood of his sufferings and death. The like expressions are common among the Jews
Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
39
And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized,
And Jesus said unto them, ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized; meaning, not that they should undergo the same sufferings he did and much less for the same end and purpose: he trod the winepress alone and bore the whole punishment due to the sins of his people himself; and of them there were none with him to take a part: but that they should endure sufferings in some sort like to his for his sake as they both afterwards did
By a figure common to Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and not unknown to Latin writers, one's lot or experience, whether joyous or adverse, divine appointments, whether favorable or unfavorable, are likened to a cup which God presents one to drink (cf. Winer's Grammar,
32): so of prosperity, Psalm 15:5 (); Psalm 22:5 (); Psalm 115:13 (); of adversity, Psalm
10:6 (); Psalm 74:9 (); Isaiah 51:17, 22 . In the N. T. of the bitter lot (the sufferings) of
Dear Mr. Ed

15
Christ: Matthew 26:39, 42 Rec.; Mark 14:36 ; Luke 22:42 ; John 8:11 ;
or
, to undergo the same calamities which I undergo, Matthew 20:22, 23 ; Mark 10:38, 39 (Plautus Cas. 5, 2, 53 (50 i. e. that he might be treated as harshly as I was); used of the divine penalties: Revelation 14:10 ; Revelation
16:19 ; Revelation 18:6 . ((Alcaeus, Sappho), Herodotus, Ctesias (), Aristophanes, Lucian, others; the Sept.”
Dear Ed,
Let me first start off by saying I was not trying to write a “perfect dissertation” paper but
I will try to do better this time around. (And by the way you also had a “few” grammatical errors in your response). I also apologize if I sounded like I was “ridiculing” you that was not my intent. Now after rereading my words to you I found no “words used to mock or make fun of your position” but simply to disagree.
In your podcast you spent much time in the external evidence to “prove” that the words of Christ came to pass. We know from Deuteronomy that a prophets words must come to pass in order for the word to be deemed “from God”, as all prophetic scripture that points to 70 AD cannot be verified in scripture, as it never mentions anything of 70 AD as a past event, of course then leading you to believe then all scripture was written prior to 70 AD based on “logic” and
“assumption”. So then we must look to Historical records to verify the “words of the prophet’.
As all preterist point to 70 AD as the point in history where all prophecy is fulfilled they use the words of Josephus (who was not even a Christian and believed the golden lamp stand had something to do with astrology) and his observations to determine fulfillment. Even Christ
“proved” His resurrection by appearing too many people over many days.
So ignoring external sources for the moment let us examine Mathew 20:22 “John 20:22
“Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Right off the top we know there is no question of any definition of any words in the verse
Dear Mr. Ed

16 that can lead to any type of confusion. The only question then that remains then is what is the cup? Mathew and Mark not knowing what “cup” he was talking about at the time of their hearing
Jesus’ words, could only reference Old Testament scriptures that spoke of a “cup”. So we will let scripture help us understand the Jewish phrase “the cup” and what cup is he talking about. You claim it is martyrdom, because James experienced “martyrdom” in Acts 12 but we know Christ did not die as a martyr for His beliefs. Christ died for the sins of the world; secondly the “Jews” put Him to death for “blasphemy”. In the verse it does not state what kind of cup it is but is left open for interpretation. So we must follow proper hermeneutics and let scripture interpret scripture and in the mouth of two or three witness let everything be established as truth.
Old Testament references
Isaiah 51:17 Wake yourself, wake yourself, stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, who have drunk to the dregs the bowl, the cup of staggering. 22 Thus says your Lord, the LORD, your God who pleads the cause of his people:
“Behold, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering ; the bowl of my wrath you shall drink no more;
Psalm 75:8 For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup with foaming wine , well mixed, and he pours out from it, and all the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs.
Jeremiah 25:15 Thus the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath , and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it . 16 They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them.”
Psalm 11:6 Let him rain coals on the wicked; fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup.
Ezekiel 23: 32 Thus says the Lord GOD: “ You shall drink your sister’s cup that is deep and large; you shall be laughed at and held in derision, for it contains much; 33 you will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow.
A cup of horror and desolation , the cup of your sister Samaria; 34 you shall drink it and
Dear Mr. Ed

17 drain it out, and gnaw its shards, and tear your breasts;
In the New Testament :
John 18:11 Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the
Father has given me?"
Revelation 14:10 He also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger , and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
Revelation 16:19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.
Revelation 18:6 Pay her back as she herself has paid back others, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double portion for her in the cup she mixed .
From Thayer’s word studies we understand “the cup” can refer to many good and bad things;
“By a figure common to Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and not unknown to Latin writers, one's lot or experience, whether joyous or adverse, divine appointments, whether favorable or unfavorable, are likened to a cup which God presents one to drink (cf. Winer's Grammar, 32): so of prosperity, Psalm 15:5 (); Psalm 22:5 (); Psalm 115:13 (); of adversity, Psalm 10:6 ();Psalm
74:9 (); Isaiah 51:17, 22.
In the N. T. of the bitter lot (the sufferings) of Christ: Matthew 26:39, 42Rec.; Mark
14:36; Luke 22:42; John 8:11; πίνειν τόποτήριον μου or ὁ ἐγώ πίνω, to undergo the same calamities which I undergo, Matthew 20:22, 23;Mark 10:38, 39 (Plautus Cas. 5, 2, 53 (50 i. e. that he might be treated as harshly as I was); used of the divine penalties: Revelation
14:10; Revelation 16:19;Revelation 18:6. ((Alcaeus, Sappho), Herodotus, Ctesias (),
Aristophanes, Lucian, others; the Sept”.
Dear Mr. Ed

18
But nowhere in scripture is mentioned the “cup” of death or of Martyrdom.
From Briggs commentary we find,
“Are ye able to drink of the cup ... - To drink of a cup, in the Scriptures, often signifies to be afflicted, or to be punished, Matthew 26:39; Isaiah 51:17, Isaiah 51:22; Psalm 73:10; Psalm
75:8; Jeremiah 25:15; Revelation 16:9. The figure is taken from a feast, where the master of a feast extends a cup to those present. Thus God is represented as extending to his Son a cup filled with a bitter mixture - one causing deep sufferings, John 18:11. This was the cup to which he referred.
Many other commentaries echo the same sentiment.
“Gills” (d) Taking the cup is figurative speech for that which is contained in the cup. And again, the Hebrews understand by the word cup, sometimes the manner of punishment which is rendered to sin, as Ps 11:6, or the joy that is given to the faithful, as Ps 23:5, and sometimes a lot or condition, as Ps 16:5.
So in every instance the cup is used in reference to drinking of something, which can be good or “Bitter, or wrath” hurtful, sever in its contents, but the idea remains it is something that is to be endured. The Greek experts along then with scripture put the importance on what is in the “cup” being drunk, and in many cases the cup being drunk did not end in “death”. The cup
Christ drank from was the cup of suffering that he bore in the garden to the cross. Revelation tells us that John drank of the cup of suffering as well as being a “partaker in the tribulation” and suffering an attempt on his life but yet surviving.
You said, “We have inspired commentary from Luke in the book of Acts to help us understand what Jesus meant. No amount of traditions can ever trump scripture. In all four gospels we see clearly what “drinking the cup” meant for Jesus. It was death. Notice that Jesus said to both James and John, “My Cup [not a generic cup of persecution, but the specific cup of martyrdom] you (both) shall drink!” Notice he did not say maybe. He said they definitely would drink the same cup that He was about to drink. We know what His cup was (death).”
Dear Mr. Ed

19
Yet in Acts 12 it says nothing more than “James was killed” and Peter also being imprisoned suffered in the same way but in this instance was not killed. No other commentary is provided about a “cup”. (why would it not be mentioned also that John was also killed?)
Scriptures does not record the death of John so it must be assumed He was still alive through the book of Acts, it is possible this information may have been overlooked by Luke but it is highly doubtful as we have the letters of John and Him speaking of Himself as an “elder” which could reference his position which is highly unlikely, but the consensus is that it was in reference to his age.
Thayer’s word studies states, “4245 presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder. The NT specifies elders are men. (The feminine singular, presbytera, never occurs in the Bible.) [The feminine plural, presbyteras, occurs in 1
Tim 5:2. It refers to aged women, i.e. not women with an official church office or title.]
We have no verifiable statements from scripture of His death as well as John 20:22 does not say “when” they would endure the “cup”. To assume a date based on an interpretation that is not reflected of old testament understanding of the term “cup” is used, is a failure in basic hermeneutics. “Let scripture interpret scripture”. To insert “martyrdom” which is an assumption that can be debated with the internal evidence against such, we then should reject it and accept the scriptural interpretation of “a cup of suffering” of which He was to endure, as some translators imply.
Mark 14:36 “Abba, Father," he cried out, "everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine."
John 18:11 But Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its sheath. Shall I not drink from the cup of suffering the Father has given me?" (NLT)
Now we know John experienced a cup of suffering as he was exiled to the Island of
Patmos where he saw the vision. It was after his release he wrote the book or Revelation. Now two things are very important to understand. John said he was a partaker in the “tribulations” and was exiled to the island of Patmos. What “tribulation” is he speaking of? We know Nero stirred up persecution against the Christians in 64AD, and yet prior to this we know some of the apostles were also “martyred” for their faith. The record stands that under Nero Christians were
Dear Mr. Ed

20 killed and the full “tribulation” came upon them after 64 AD. It would first appear highly unlikely John would have been banished to Patmos while many of the other apostles were killed but not impossible.
Now as you claim Papias statement corroborates (provides proof) the statement made by
Jesus in that they would suffer Martyrdom, A fragment is attributed to Papias which states that
"John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". And you use this quote to verify that John was indeed martyred. Yet Papias claims to be “Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John , and a friend of Polycarp” as is recorded in his introduction to His work and collaborated by Irenaeus. For
Papias to claim to have been a hearer of John would mean John lived beyond 70 AD, and also for
Polycarp to have been His disciple as Papias claims. So either Papias claim of hearing John is a lie, or the statement of John being killed by the Jews (prior to 70 AD) is in error.
May I point out the fragment on which the statement made by Papias about John being killed by the Jews, has not been proven to be a statement made by Papias, but it is assumed and further it does not state “when” John was killed.
Further as collaboration of truth, John writes “He was on the Island of Patmos a fellow partaker in the tribulation” In History of the Church Book Three it states,
“
Domitian , having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.
Eusebias goes on to say,
“It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos ”.
Tertullian also repeats the same confirmation of John being sent to the island Of Patmos,
Dear Mr. Ed

21
“
Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.
10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the
Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that
Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them.
11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus ,
Now scripture collaborates these statements or these statement collaborate scripture as being accurate. So by your own statement of “by two or three witness let everything be established as truth”. So if BOTH say John was condemned to the Island of Patmos, They are both correct, both say he was condemned to the island for his testimony, and during the persecution, again both are telling the truth. So why should we assume they “lied” about it being during the time of Domitian, who was succeeded by Nerva? We have demonstrated Papias made conflicting statements so is proven to be “untrustworthy” IF the fragment is his work.
If the other church fathers are untrustworthy does that mean they are unreliable in everything they say? This cannot be the case as many theologians (futurist and Preterist) quote the church fathers in providing evidence and to collaborate the truth of scriptures as I have done here.
It is funny to me you should say, “But we have TWO synoptic scriptures here to help us, not just one. At the mouth of two or more, every fact is determined.” Yet in the quote I provided for you from Eusebius, he says the same thing, by the witness of two “Christian” men.
“At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria
”.
Church History Book three chapter 23.
Dear Mr. Ed

22
In your response to refute these Christian men’s testimony you say, “
At least Papias tried to do that when he pointed to Matthew and Mark, which is more than I can say for Irenaeus or
Eusebius who had something to gain from their distorted views of church history” .
May I point out you provide no evidence of “their distortion of Historical facts” but provided a miss statement of personal opinion or interpretation of the facts as evidence to dismiss their claims.
May I also point out in every paper you have written where you claim John was
“raptured” and now you state you believe He died, are we to assume based on your change that you deliberately mislead people before? Or that in anything you wrote there is no mistakes?
As I said before
“After reading the many statements of early church fathers we do recognize they were not perfect in “every” statement made”.
One mistake or even several cannot negate all of what they wrote. Yet to be honest
Papias cannot be a hearer of John unless John was alive after 70 AD. AND the statement made
By Eusebias and Irenaeus, Clement all verify John was on the Island of Patmos, during a persecution, the part you do not like is the naming of Domitian the ruler who exiled John to the
Island.
Now as you said, “You(I) determine the meaning of Matt 20 and Mark 10 on the basis of what tradition tells you, rather than from an exegesis of Scripture inside its context and in the context of the rest of scripture.”
Well sir, I have demonstrated from scripture why the “cup” is a cup of suffering, using other Old and New Testament scriptures to prove that case, I gave you the agreement of other
“Christian Greek)” scholars on this same point, (I yet to find one who disagrees with this assessment or agrees with you interpretation). I have demonstrated how church Fathers collaborate by personal knowledge the truth of John being on the island and they identify that time period as being after 70 AD. The scripture itself in Math 20 does not say when John was to be killed, (outside or you insertion again of “some of those standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” (Matt 16:27-28).” Which does not identify John as being one who would not see) does not prove John was killed prior to 70 AD.
Dear Mr. Ed

23
Again let me point out your words, “ Our interpretations of Scripture could be mistaken, but Scripture itself cannot be broken, otherwise Christianity itself is falsified
”.
Your idea of the cup being a “cup of (Martyrdom)” is an interpretation.
Now as you bring up the other let me also comment here. “ The Preterist view is based directly on Scripture. The TIME statements and the EXPECTATION statements of scripture are the foundation of everything we preterists believe”.
May I suggest Preterism is based on their (your) “interpretation of scripture” as we know others read the same Bible and come to different conclusions.
So let me address your time statement for a moment, wisdom I have gleaned from scripture that is not interpretation.
Statements of “kingdom of God is at hand” and or “the coming of the Kingdom” or “the
Kingdom of God is among you” are all statement about the rule of God in men’s lives, as He said
He did not come to set up an earthly kingdom at that time. So His rule is in men’s hearts (no interpretation here). So if the rule of God is among them NOW as he was speaking to that audience, they would understand the Kingdom is evident NOW, not later. So every verse that pertains to “the coming of the Kingdom” was fulfilled By Christ and realized when Christ ascended and took his seat at “right hand of the father” Revelation says he has the Keys to death and Hell, and that He triumphed over death, so now we understand His Kingdom began over this world at his ascension, when he assumed His position of authority at the right hand of the father
NOT in 70 AD.
Because He is the King He sent the Roman army as a tool of judgment against Israel for the blood of the prophets as Mathew 23 tells us. The judgment was “soon” to come upon them.
“Coming in the clouds” does not mean a personal appearance as “erchomai” means a “coming from” and does not require the personal appearance. This we saw also in BC in the captivity,
God’s judgment came upon Israel in the form of the Babylonian empire. So every time statement associated with “coming on the clouds” is “soon” and fulfilled in 70AD as History records this fulfillment NOT scripture but according to scripture it must happen.
The word “coming” as in Mathew 24:3 is “parousía” not “erchomai” the Greek meaning of the word from Strong’s is “3952 parousía (from parōn, "be present, arrive to enter into a
Dear Mr. Ed

situation") – properly, coming, especially the arrival of the owner who alone can deal with a situation (cf. LS). 3952 (parousía) is a "technical term with reference to the visit of a king or some other official, 'a royal visit' " (Souter) – "hence, in the NT, specifically of the Advent or Parousia of Christ" (A-S). [ 3952 (parousía) is "used in the east as a technical expression for the royal visit of a king, or emperor. The word means literally 'the being beside,' thus, 'the personal presence' “(K. Wuest, 3, Bypaths, 33).]
24
This word is used 24 times in the New testament, so again following proper hermeneutics, (we know what the word means) scriptures uses the word twice to indicate a personal appearance of a person to another town. The word is used once to indicate Paul’s personal appearance to deal with a situation in another city he is writing to. The reaming usage of the word pertains to Christ “return”, His “coming”, His personal physical appearance, being consistent with scripture in using the word. His appearance can not be a “figurative” as Paul appearance or any one else’s was not “figurative” but literal.
Now in Mathew 24:25-28 it gives a specific warning, “if any one says Christ has come back and is in the desert, or in the wilderness, do not believe it? Why? Because when he does return it will be like lightning lighting up the sky; ie everyone will see Him when he returns as scripture says “every eye will, also “those who pierced him will also see” and they will know it is Him without doubt. Revelation 19 says the armies of the Beast gather to make war against the rider on the white horse, so they too recognize the return of Christ.
Also we know that when He comes several things are going to happen. I Corinthians 15 and 2 Thessalonians 4 tells us the dead in Christ will rise and those who are alive will be changed, and that he will gather His elect from the four corners of the earth. Not just from Israel as we know Corinth and Thessalonica was not in Israel but they were told “They” would be changed or raised based on their condition of His return, so we know this is not a local
“resurrection”.
Mathew 24 goes on to also tell us His return will happen on a day when no one excepts it, and the next few verses say and it will be like the days of Noah, people will be eating drinking, and living a normal life when He returns. In Verse 48 Jesus warns that people will be thinking
He has delayed His return and so they live like fools.
Dear Mr. Ed

25
May I point out as one observation If they knew Christ was to return at the end of the 70
AD Roman campaign they would have been ready for Him, they would have expected Him to come. Were they eating and drinking and living life normally in 70AD? Was 70AD just like the days of Noah? Noah had not one convert, yet in 70 AD there was a thriving Church. (This is just an observation). Did they believe he was delaying His return?
In Mathew 27:52 we see the dead in Jerusalem rising out of their graves and walking around and being seen in Jerusalem as Mathew recorded in His gospel which of course was written years after the events. This resurrection was observed and recoded by a reliable witness but we know this is not the “resurrection” that is to accompany His return.
Then we can understand that at His return that Christ and the saints who are raised and the saints who are changed are not “ghosts” they have bodies that can be seen as Mathew 27:52 confirms what is a resurrection, and that it is a global resurrection as Thess 4 says He brings back
ALL of the dead (in Christ) and Changes ALL of the elect in Christ globally as we established
Corinth and Thessalonica are not in Israel,
Further as Jesus said. “So when you see” in Mathew 24:15, he then says, “Then let those who are.” His warning to flee was not just for the four men who were listening but the words were a warning to ALL inhabitants of the land.
There is no recorded testimony of any person or of any church father of the first or second century who stated that Christ had returned, that the dead were raised, or that those who
Christians who were alive where changed according to 2 Thessalonians 4 from mortal to immortal, from perishable to imperishable, as scripture says “this body will put on”.
So then my problem becomes very simple with Preterism; What Christ says must come to pass at His return “Must” come to pass. There must be witnesses to these events as happening as it happened “globally”, yet the “testimonial” evidence of many witnesses shows that John did live beyond 70 AD, he was not changed and died an old man in Ephesus. Supposed time statement cannot mean in English what we think they mean. Our interpretation of events becomes at fault, not the scripture.
As scripture never says a thing about 70AD as a past event or does Josephus record seeing Christ return, the dead being raised, and those living being changed. A point and case; if
Dear Mr. Ed

26 those who were alive were changed into new bodies they would still be with us today since they cannot die. Death is separation of the souls from the body and an Immortal imperishable body cannot die of old age. Christ cannot be separated from His risen glorified immortal imperishable body that he was raised into, the same “body” that came out of the grave, either, as Christ cannot die again. There is no scripture that states after the return he takes every one with Him back to heaven. In fact what is the point of being raised from the dead into a new body if we are just going to lose it again and go back up to heaven, but then an imperishable immortal body that houses our “spirit” cannot die again as imperishable and immortal means that the glorified body of flesh cannot die. In His case He returns to “rule the nations with a rod of iron”, this cannot be done as a “ghost” as Christ is not a “ghost”. The second coming implies as scriptures demonstrates, Christ came to live as a man the first time; His second coming is to rule as the
King (not in ghost form).
By the way, Just as Mathew 27:52 was a literal “resurrection” Christ was a literal resurrection, the Promise of our Bodies being redeemed, we will all experience or see a “literal” resurrection at His return since we will all literally meet Him in the air.
Now this does not require an answer or a comment back. I have read a majority of material you have written and other Preterist. It my contention you do not understand the time statements and Preterist have demonstrated their need to “redefine” Greek words to fit their theology over and over again, all time statement do not apply to all three “comings” but each time statement is applied to an individual “coming”.
“Parousia” has no time statement attached within the same verse or in any verse. The
Greek definition of the supposed time statement of Revelation 1 and 22 is not accepted by any preterist.
5035 taxý (an adjective, used adverbially, and derived from 5036 /taxýs, "promptly") – properly, swift (quick), without unnecessary delay; used of God's promptness characterizing how
He has ordered all physical scenes of life to happen on His perfect timetable without unnecessary "delay" (Rev 1:1, 22:6).
[ 5035 (taxý) does not mean "immediately" or necessarily "in a very short time" but rather
"without any delay."]
Dear Mr. Ed

So we know Christ will return in the right time, and He will not be delay as Mathew
24:48 explains..
27
One last point in Luke 21:24 “the time of the gentiles begins after the destruction of the temple, and is characterized by Jerusalem being trampled under by the gentiles UNTIL the season is over; the season (of time) is over when Jerusalem is no longer being trampled under by the Gentiles. This is the “distress of those days” in Mathew 24:29. So this generation that experiences the return of control back to the Jewish people will see the return.
As I said I am not a dispensationalist as I believe Mathew 24:4-28 was fulfilled in 70 AD.
There is no need for a temple to be rebuilt or for the “abomination” to happen again. But neither am I a partial Preterist since Revelation has no fulfillment in 70AD as it was written 96-98 AD.
I do believe Christ will return in my lifetime.
At the risk of repeating myself this letter requires no response as I have heard every argument and debate from preterist and their claims. With all due respect and no ridicule intended I humbly disagree.
Sincerely
Stephen Whitsett
[FROM ED] Thanks for your second paper. Much better, but I have to confess that I simply cannot abide with your scripture-twisting of Matthew 20 and Mark 10. Your attempt to explain away the clear intent of Jesus there is unacceptable. You are indeed guilty as charged: “invalidating the Word of God by your traditions ... and you do many such things like that.” You are so stuck on defending the integrity of the late second century churchmen that you are willing to sacrifice the integrity of Christ and His apostles for it. Where is your allegiance to truth? Why do you promote uninspired writers above the inspired writers?
Dear Mr. Ed

28
Jesus said both James and John would drink “my cup.” That cup was death on the
Cross. James suffered death also. That was ind eed the same “cup” that Jesus drank
(unless you are willing to say that Jesus was wrong about his drinking “my cup”). So,
Jesus’ cup was death, James drank the same cup (death). By necessary implication,
John would also drink that same cup that Jesus and James drank. That is so easy to understand, even a caveman could do it! I will not negotiate on this point. When you are willing to admit that John also had to die before the Parousia in AD 70 like his brother
James, then we can continue this discussion, but not until.
Ed
You quoted Papias (In His paper “Did john live beyond 70 AD”).
Pap. 6:3 For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen him with his own eyes, (a hearer also of John)..
If John died in 63-64 AD as you assert and Papias was born 69 AD, died about 155 AD
(assumed about the same time with Polycarp) that would make Papias 93 or so when he died...
(unless you want to dismiss all this historical evidence as well)
Making Papias under 3-5 years old MAYBE when he supposedly saw John... it is reasoned Polycarp was born in 69 AD and Papias, but the likely chance of Papias seeing let alone being born before John Died when you say He did is a stretch of the imagination...so we have no choice based on your grounds of asserting all church history as being inconclusive and unreliable..using you own logical arguments of John even being to old to even do some of the things they say he did in his old age.. Papais was too young to be reliable for early date of the witting of Revelation which leaves us with scripture alone
Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Dear Mr. Ed

29
Because scripture does not say .... When... or that he would "not be" one who would see Jesus coming in His kingdom.. and all of the following scriptures listed below point to
His suffering that led to Christ death.. and not martyrdom itself being the cup..
I find the rest of your arguments mute. (All of your arguments start with the premise Jesus DID return in
70 AD) The overwhelming evidence of scripture points to a "cup of suffering that led to His death", but not all suffering leads to death (Job).. We have to go with scripture and not man’s opinion, that the cup was not Martyrdom but the suffering he endured that led to the cross and on it.
You said "This means that the Parousia occurred within their awareness and experience.
Therefore, their silence afterward is problematic, (it is not problematic if he did not come) since it means that they would have heard later Christians after AD 70 claiming that the Parousia was still future. They knew it had occurred, but for some reason they did not speak up and set the record straight. Silence in that case makes futurists question whether the Parousia really happened, since the post-70 saints do not seem to show any awareness of it having occurred.
Either they did not experience it and know it happened, or all those who saw it and experienced it were taken off the earth, and were no longer around to tell the story. (Then how can you have other disciples to explain if there all gone {faith comes by hearing} this would also mean that was the LAST day, all of the elect were gone there can be no more elect after the LAST DAY?)
There really is no other reasonable option.
...if every Christian was taken off the earth this would have been recorded, talked about, and millions would come to believe as it would have been witnessed by Millions throughout the
Roma empire... To see the church of Ephesus just disappear, or the church in Rome, Corinth,
Smyrna, and not one person record it, let alone Clement or Hegessipus, or even Irenaeus that goes beyond the stretch of any imagination...
Since Papais, Polycarp were born before 70 AD... They would have seen the return they would have never claimed to have a "hearer of John." let alone a disciple, then to die for their faith yet lie about who they heard it from...
• If they had still been around after AD 70 they would have mentioned the fulfillment that had just occurred, especially if Apostle John was one of the ones still around. John
Dear Mr. Ed

30 literally “wrote the book” on AD 70 (the Book of Revelation)". ...I think we can establish beyond a shadow of doubt because the return did not happen in 70 AD Revelation is not about 70 AD...
For him to have been around afterwards and not mention the fulfillment's of the book he had written is more than a “documentation problem.” It would raise serious objections against his integrity as an inspired apostle and a true prophet. The full weight of this problem needs to be felt by Preterists.
I am sorry Ed but I find your arguments based on a faulty Idea, That John has to have died before 70 AD for Preterism to be true! but there in is the problem, you have to prove it in order to make Preterism truth, and you cannot do that without a reasonable doubt. Scripture is against first and primarily as you have to insert "martyrdom" your interpretation to make it fit what you are saying as well as Historical evidence... but then even still it does not say "when"
..Arguments do not prove...interpretations do not prove...
What is proven you are relying on your personal interpretation to hold your theology together as you argue why you are right... showing that your motive is to defend your position that scripture does not and cannot hold to.. You sir, are taking your theology to scripture instead of getting you theology from scripture, if you have to go to such lengths to prove John died before 70 AD when nowhere in scripture does it say John died, yet it tells you James did... as well as other apostles, and John being a major writer of the New Testament... your argument is stretched too thin. My foundation in Christ word is too solid and safe to think I need to walk on thin ice in order to be right. As you admit you are trying to solve a problem. Scripture does not cause problems it is our theology. It is when we go to "prove" something we believe we will find our proof every time. History is littered with men who proved their theology with scripture.
Romans 8;17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (not "died" with
Him but "suffer" with Him.)
Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the ...
Dear Mr. Ed

...
But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by ...
Acts 1:3 After his suffering , he showed himself to these men and ...
After his suffering , he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over ...
Mark 14:36 "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for ...
...
"Abba, Father," he cried out, "everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. ...
Take this cup [of suffering ] away from me. ..
1 Peter 2:21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for ...
...
For God called you to do good, even if it means suffering , just as Christ suffered for you. ...
God called you to endure suffering because Christ suffered for you. ...
1 Thessalonians 1:6 You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in ...
You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering , you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. ...
Romans 5:3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings ...
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance ...
But that's not all. We also brag when we are suffering . ..
Isaiah 53:11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the ...
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear
Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the ...
I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance
31
Dear Mr. Ed

that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word ...
Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows ...
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering . ...
He was a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering . ...
Lamentations 1:18 "The LORD is righteous, yet I rebelled against ...
"The LORD is righteous, yet I rebelled against his command. Listen, all you peoples; look upon my suffering . My young men and maidens have gone into exile. ...
Revelation 2:22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering , and I ...
So I will cast her on a bed of suffering , and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. ...
Isaiah 14:3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering ...
On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage .
Psalm 55:3 at the voice of the enemy, at the stares of the wicked ...
at the voice of the enemy, at the stares of the wicked; for they bring down suffering upon me and revile me in their anger. ...
For they bring suffering on me. ...
Acts 5:41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they ...
The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.
2 Timothy 1:8 So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ...
...
But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God
2 Timothy 2:3 Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of ...
...
Endure suffering along with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. ...
Dear Mr. Ed
32

Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. ...
1 Peter 5:9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you ...
...
faith. Remember that your Christian brothers and sisters all over the world are going through the same kind of suffering you are. ...
2 Timothy 4:5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure ...
...
Don't be afraid of suffering for the Lord. ...
As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering , do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. ...
1 Peter 4:19 So then, those who suffer according to God's will ...
...
So if you are suffering in a manner that pleases God, keep on doing what is right, and trust your lives to the God who created you, for he will never fail you. ...
2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light and momentary troubles are ...
...
This light, temporary nature of our suffering is producing for us an everlasting, weight of glory, far beyond any comparison ...
33
2 Thessalonians 1:7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and ...
...
It is also right for God to give all of us relief from our suffering . ...
Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of ...
...
For you have been given not only the privilege of trusting in
Christ but also the privilege of suffering for him. ...
2 Corinthians 8:2 Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing ...
...
In spite of their terrible ordeal of suffering , their abundant joy and deep poverty has led them to be abundantly generous. ...
Dear Mr. Ed