PDA

View Full Version : antipas



chrysostom
July 27th, 2014, 02:57 PM
antipas 2:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:13&version=KJV)

who is antipas? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum)

tertullian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian) 225 mentions him
victorinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorinus_of_Pettau) 303 does not
eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius) 340 does not

tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm) also knows about the seven churches
victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm) does not
eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) does not

the only reasonable explanation for this
is
there were two different versions of the apocalypse

one that had antipas and the seven churches
and
the other that did not


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

Bradley D
July 27th, 2014, 05:39 PM
Antipas martyr. Some earlier manuscripts do not mention "martyr." Writings about who Antipas was did not appear till the 5th and 6th century. Many commentaries consider those to be myths. Whoever Antipas was, Jesus mentioned him and that is a great blessing for him.

1Mind1Spirit
July 27th, 2014, 11:27 PM
antipas 2:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:13&version=KJV)

who is antipas?

tertullian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian) 225 mentions him
victorinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorinus_of_Pettau) 303 does not
eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius) 340 does not

tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm) also knows about the seven churches
victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm) does not
eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) does not

the only reasonable explanation for this
is
there were two different versions of the apocalypse

one that had antipas and the seven churches
and
the other that did not


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)


I'd say there is a good possibility that Jesus was talkin' bout the days of Herod Antipas when His church was being martyred, some of those who fled that time of persecution took the word there.

Acts 8:4 KJV
Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.


Acts 11:19 KJV
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.





Those old church father's took many liberties with changing scripture.


Nobody described days by the death of anyone.

Days were determined by a length of rule by a king.

Therefore the days were of Antipas, wherein Christ's faithful were slain.

The way it was translated......

Revelation 2:13 KJV
I know thy works, and where thou dwellest , even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth .

The way John most likely wrote it............

Revelation 2:13 KJV
I know thy works, and where thou dwellest , even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days of Antipas, wherein my faithful were slain among you, where Satan dwelleth .

chrysostom
July 28th, 2014, 03:40 AM
Antipas martyr. Some earlier manuscripts do not mention "martyr." Writings about who Antipas was did not appear till the 5th and 6th century. Many commentaries consider those to be myths. Whoever Antipas was, Jesus mentioned him and that is a great blessing for him.

eusebius mentions many martyrs
but
not antipas

he mentions the church pergamos
he mentions all but one of the churches
he mentions the apocalypse many times
but
no where does he connects any of the churches to the apocalypse

there is only one reasonable explanation
his version of the apocalypse did not have antipas or the churches

the same must be true for victorinus

chrysostom
July 28th, 2014, 03:43 AM
Those old church father's took many liberties with changing scripture.



you seem to be taking many liberties with scripture

chrysostom
August 1st, 2014, 06:20 AM
Writings about who Antipas was did not appear till the 5th and 6th century.

there are not any extant copies of the apocalypse prior to the 5th century

prior to the 5th century
tertullian is the only one to mention antipas

1Mind1Spirit
August 1st, 2014, 05:35 PM
you seem to be taking many liberties with scripture

I'm not a church father trying to make scripture line up with the writings of a jewish historian who was born to one of the priests that helped crucify Christ.

chrysostom
August 11th, 2014, 03:46 AM
we know more about pergamon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon) than we know about antipas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum)
and
we know that none of the seven churches survived
we know that christianity did not survive in what is now known as turkey
islam, the second beast, replaced christianity and paganism
paganism of the roman empire, the first beast, killed antipas
those who had an ear were being warned
they would have to overcometh to survive the second death
He knew their works
He knows our works

1Mind1Spirit
August 11th, 2014, 04:58 AM
we know more about pergamon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon) than we know about antipas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum)
and
we know that none of the seven churches survived
we know that christianity did not survive in what is now known as turkey
islam, the second beast, replaced christianity and paganism
paganism of the roman empire, the first beast, killed antipas
those who had an ear were being warned
they would have to overcometh to survive the second death
He knew their works
He knows our works

Really?..........

How exactly did Islam cause people to worship Rome?

Revelation 13:12 KJV
And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed .

False Prophet
August 11th, 2014, 08:22 AM
Many Christian traditions believe Saint Antipas to be the Antipas referred to in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 2:13) as the "faithful martyr" of Pergamon, "where Satan dwells". According to Christian tradition, John the Apostle ordained Antipas as bishop of Pergamon during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The traditional account goes on to say Antipas was martyred in ca. 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar for casting out demons worshiped by the local population.

There is a tradition of oil ("manna of the saints") being secreted from the relics of Saint Antipas.[3] On the calendars of Eastern Christianity, the feast day of Antipas is April 11.

1Mind1Spirit
August 11th, 2014, 09:22 PM
Many Christian traditions believe Saint Antipas to be the Antipas referred to in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 2:13) as the "faithful martyr" of Pergamon, "where Satan dwells". According to Christian tradition, John the Apostle ordained Antipas as bishop of Pergamon during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The traditional account goes on to say Antipas was martyred in ca. 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar for casting out demons worshiped by the local population.

There is a tradition of oil ("manna of the saints") being secreted from the relics of Saint Antipas.[3] On the calendars of Eastern Christianity, the feast day of Antipas is April 11.



Paul's prophecy literally came to pass.

2 Timothy 4:4 KJV
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

chrysostom
August 23rd, 2014, 07:15 AM
Really?..........

How exactly did Islam cause people to worship Rome?

Revelation 13:12 KJV
And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed .

who worships rome?

chrysostom
August 23rd, 2014, 07:20 AM
the dog that didn't bark

I don't wish to refer to eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius) and victorinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorinus_of_Pettau) as dogs
but
the truth is they didn't bark

they didn't know about antipas
they didn't know about the seven churches either
so
what do you make of this?

chrysostom
September 5th, 2014, 03:29 AM
in revelation2, john talks about pergamos and antipas (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2&version=KJV)

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

here victorinus does not mention pergamos or antipas (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)

The third order of the saints shows that they are men who are strong in faith, and who are not afraid of persecution; but because even among them there are some who are inclined to unlawful associations, He says:—

14-16. "You have there some who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught in the case of Balak that he should put a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat and to commit fornication. So also have you them who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes; but I will fight with them with the sword of my mouth." That is, I will say what I shall command, and I will tell you what you shall do. For Balaam, with his doctrine, taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the eyes of the children of Israel, to eat what was sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication—a thing which is known to have happened of old. For he gave this advice to the king of the Moabites, and they caused stumbling to the people. Thus, says He, you have among you those who hold such doctrine; and under the pretext of mercy, you would corrupt others.

17. "To him that overcomes I will give the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone." The hidden manna is immortality; the white gem is adoption to be the son of God; the new name written on the stone is "Christian."

chrysostom
September 28th, 2014, 05:11 AM
so why do the other commentators ignore the fact
that
eusebius and victorinus ignore antipas?

chrysostom
October 15th, 2014, 03:36 AM
what they don't say can be significant when you take into consideration what they have said
victorinus and eusebius are the best examples of this
and
I have not come across any commentaries on the apocalypse that talks about this
it calls for speculation
something many prefer not to do

chrysostom
October 30th, 2014, 04:25 AM
what they don't say

victorinus and eusebius don't talk about it
so
the commentators don't talk about it

who is going to talk about it?

chrysostom
November 18th, 2014, 05:27 AM
I will talk about it

ideogenous_mover
November 18th, 2014, 05:58 PM
Whoever he was, the name 'antipas' breaks down to something kind of un-name like: 'anti' 'pater', or anti-father. That sounds like a funny name.

Origen
November 21st, 2014, 11:11 AM
there are not any extant copies of the apocalypse prior to the 5th centuryWould you please clarify the above comment for me?

chrysostom
November 21st, 2014, 11:51 AM
Would you please clarify the above comment for me?

we do not have a copy of the apocalypse that is older than the 5th century
so
we do not know what was in it

all we have are people writing about it

Origen
November 21st, 2014, 12:20 PM
we do not have a copy of the apocalypse that is older than the 5th century
so
we do not know what was in it

all we have are people writing about itThank you but that is not correct. There is codex Sinaiticus which is dated to around 350. And there are the papyri (i.e. P18, P24, P98, P115) all of which date before the 5th century. The papyri are not complete copies (however codex Sinaiticus is) of the Apocalypse however we to know what was in those sections that we do have.

chrysostom
November 21st, 2014, 12:24 PM
Thank you but that is not correct. There is codex Sinaiticus which is dated to around 350. And there are the papyri (i.e. P18, P24, P98, P115) all of which date before the 5th century. The papyri are not complete copies (however codex Sinaiticus is) of the Apocalypse however we to know what was in those sections that we do have.

so we do not have a complete copy of the apocalyse prior to the 5th century
and
we do not have complete agreement as to whether or not it should be in there

Origen
November 21st, 2014, 12:55 PM
so we do not have a complete copy of the apocalyse prior to the 5th centuryCodex Sinaiticus has the complete text and it dates to around 350. If you want to look at it here is the link.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/


we do not have complete agreement as to whether or not it should be in thereThe authors of Codex Sinaiticus thought it should be there. Making a codex was very expensive and it does not seem prudent if Revelation was not generally accepted.

As for finding "complete agreement," I not sure that is even possible.

chrysostom
May 30th, 2015, 02:38 PM
sorry about this bump
and
this dump
but
they are deleting my posts
and
I don't want to lose these

Anto9us
May 30th, 2015, 03:12 PM
I don't want them lost either - Chrysostom - this is good stuff

two full pages on Antipas -- and yet no mention of him regarding the "Preterism/Futurism" conflict

you see

Antipas (name means literally AGAINST ALL" in Greek

was Bishop of Pergamum

but the DATES of his bishopric and death are DISPUTED -- even by Eastern Orthodox sources who seem to be the ONLY sources to have any real dates about Antipas

normally, most sources put Antipas' death about 92 AD - meaning that jives with a normal 95 AD writing of Revelation. But the only real sources for these things are in what I have come to call an "Eastern Orthodox Fox's Book of Martyrs" and it had few references.

Once at another board, there was a specifc sub-forum for Eastern Orthodox -- and I went in pleading for any and all good refernces for ANTIPAS - Bishop of Pergamum

I was given refernces that had ambiguous dates - some had his bishopric in Domitian's reign -- jiving with most schaolar's dates on Revelation

HOWEVER - IT WAS SAID THAT ANTIPAS' BISHOPRIC WAS DISPUTED -- AND COULD HAVE BEEN IN NERO'S REIGN -- meaning of course that Antipas could have died before a few years before 70 AD and falling in line with the Preterist EARLY DATING of the book of Revelation

so I thought I had really stumbled into a tie-breaker -- a deal-clencher -- in this Eastern Orthodox sub-forum -- something that would settle the deal on whether Revelation was written in Nero's time or Domitian's time

and here it was -- a "no call"

I threw up my hands and forgot about it

chrysostom
May 30th, 2015, 03:19 PM
I don't want them lost either - Chrysostom - this is good stuff

two full pages on Antipas -- and yet no mention of him regarding the "Preterism/Futurism" conflict

you see

Antipas (name means literally AGAINST ALL" in Greek

was Bishop of Pergamum

but the DATES of his bishopric and death are DISPUTED -- even by Eastern Orthodox sources who seem to be the ONLY sources to have any real dates about Antipas

normally, most sources put Antipas' death about 92 AD - meaning that jives with a normal 95 AD writing of Revelation. But the only real sources for these things are in what I have come to call an "Eastern Orthodox Fox's Book of Martyrs" and it had few references.

Once at another board, there was a specifc sub-forum for Eastern Orthodox -- and I went in pleading for any and all good refernces for ANTIPAS - Bishop of Pergamum

I was given refernces that had ambiguous dates - some had his bishopric in Domitian's reign -- jiving with most schaolar's dates on Revelation

HOWEVER - IT WAS SAID THAT ANTIPAS' BISHOPRIC WAS DISPUTED -- AND COULD HAVE BEEN IN NERO'S REIGN -- meaning of course that Antipas could have died before a few years before 70 AD and falling in line with the Preterist EARLY DATING of the book of Revelation

so I thought I had really stumbled into a tie-breaker -- a deal-clencher -- in this Eastern Orthodox sub-forum -- something that would settle the deal on whether Revelation was written in Nero's time or Domitian's time

and here it was -- a "no call"

I threw up my hands and forgot about it

there is a good explanation for this
there were at least two versions of the apocalypse
one without antipas
and
another with him
eusebius and victorinus did not know about antipas
so
they didn't get the second version

chrysostom
June 11th, 2015, 03:47 AM
Antipas of Pergamum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum)

chrysostom
October 3rd, 2015, 04:43 AM
eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) and victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm) did not know about antipas

chrysostom
October 23rd, 2015, 05:08 AM
eusebius mentions many martyrs in his church history

but not antipas

his copy of the apocalypse didn't have antipas

everready
October 25th, 2015, 02:02 PM
eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) and victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm) did not know about antipas

Jesus did.

everready

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 06:18 AM
Jesus did.

everready

good point
but
can you explain why
eusebius and victorinus did not know about antipas
when
both knew and commented on the apocalypse?

nikolai_42
October 26th, 2015, 07:45 AM
good point
but
can you explain why
eusebius and victorinus did not know about antipas
when
both knew and commented on the apocalypse?

I'm afraid I don't know the literature very well at all, but in a commentary on Revelation, Daniel Denison Whedon says this upon that verse :


Antipas - Is said by Eusebius to have been slain, in a tumult, by the Esculapian priests.

{From Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 5 by Whedon, Daniel Denison, New York : Eaton and Mains (1880); p348}

Not sure what work that would be from, though...

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 08:04 AM
I'm afraid I don't know the literature very well at all, but in a commentary on Revelation, Daniel Denison Whedon says this upon that verse :



{From Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 5 by Whedon, Daniel Denison, New York : Eaton and Mains (1880); p348}

Not sure what work that would be from, though...

church history by eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) is online

can you show us where he mentions antipas?

nikolai_42
October 26th, 2015, 08:13 AM
church history by eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) is online

can you show us where he mentions antipas?

No I can't. All I'm saying is that a commentary has an uncited reference to Eusebius. But I do understand that there are other works of Eusebius that are not either commonly read (or possibly translated). I think the same commentator (can't recall if it was him or not) made reference to Eusebius' Commentary on the Psalms. He cited Stuart as his source there. So I really can't tell what he is quoting. I even tried looking for Antipater...

daqq
October 26th, 2015, 10:25 AM
Thank you but that is not correct. There is codex Sinaiticus which is dated to around 350. And there are the papyri (i.e. P18, P24, P98, P115) all of which date before the 5th century. The papyri are not complete copies (however codex Sinaiticus is) of the Apocalypse however we to know what was in those sections that we do have.


I don't want them lost either - Chrysostom - this is good stuff

two full pages on Antipas -- and yet no mention of him regarding the "Preterism/Futurism" conflict

you see

Antipas (name means literally AGAINST ALL" in Greek

was Bishop of Pergamum

but the DATES of his bishopric and death are DISPUTED -- even by Eastern Orthodox sources who seem to be the ONLY sources to have any real dates about Antipas

normally, most sources put Antipas' death about 92 AD - meaning that jives with a normal 95 AD writing of Revelation. But the only real sources for these things are in what I have come to call an "Eastern Orthodox Fox's Book of Martyrs" and it had few references.

Once at another board, there was a specifc sub-forum for Eastern Orthodox -- and I went in pleading for any and all good refernces for ANTIPAS - Bishop of Pergamum

I was given refernces that had ambiguous dates - some had his bishopric in Domitian's reign -- jiving with most schaolar's dates on Revelation

HOWEVER - IT WAS SAID THAT ANTIPAS' BISHOPRIC WAS DISPUTED -- AND COULD HAVE BEEN IN NERO'S REIGN -- meaning of course that Antipas could have died before a few years before 70 AD and falling in line with the Preterist EARLY DATING of the book of Revelation

so I thought I had really stumbled into a tie-breaker -- a deal-clencher -- in this Eastern Orthodox sub-forum -- something that would settle the deal on whether Revelation was written in Nero's time or Domitian's time

and here it was -- a "no call"

I threw up my hands and forgot about it


there is a good explanation for this
there were at least two versions of the apocalypse
one without antipas
and
another with him
eusebius and victorinus did not know about antipas
so
they didn't get the second version


eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) and victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm) did not know about antipas


eusebius mentions many martyrs in his church history

but not antipas

his copy of the apocalypse didn't have antipas

Perhaps you already have the answers in the yellow highlighted portions quoted above from other posters? Perhaps it is not what is written that changed but rather the reading. Before the "Antipas of Pergamum" event, (whether it is a true story or not) the reading was probably anti-pas, that is, "against all", (i.e. "the days against all"). However, after the "Antipas of Pergamum" event the reading suddenly changes to a personal name, "Antipas", because several hundred years later those who read the passage were not familiar enough with when exactly it was actually written, (by Yochanan the Immerser in the Macherus-Patmos fortress prison of Herod). Whether it was written originally in Hebrew-Aramaic, or whether originally in Greek, there is no doubt that the first Greek manuscript or copy would have been written in Uncial script which is all capitals without spaces. Thus the reading may be either anti-pas or Antipas with no change at all in the text. If Eusebius and Victorinus do not mention Antipas it does not necessarily mean it was not in the text in their day but more likely it means that they read it as "against all" rather than the personal name Antipas. Remember also that the one like unto (a/the) Son of man, whom Yochanan sees in the first chapter, was slain from the foundation of the world, (Revelation 13:8). :)

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 11:06 AM
Perhaps you already have the answers in the yellow highlighted portions quoted above from other posters? Perhaps it is not what is written that changed but rather the reading. Before the "Antipas of Pergamum" event, (whether it is a true story or not) the reading was probably anti-pas, that is, "against all", (i.e. "the days against all"). However, after the "Antipas of Pergamum" event the reading suddenly changes to a personal name, "Antipas", because several hundred years later those who read the passage were not familiar enough with when exactly it was actually written, (by Yochanan the Immerser in the Macherus-Patmos fortress prison of Herod). Whether it was written originally in Hebrew-Aramaic, or whether originally in Greek, there is no doubt that the first Greek manuscript or copy would have been written in Uncial script which is all capitals without spaces. Thus the reading may be either anti-pas or Antipas with no change at all in the text. If Eusebius and Victorinus do not mention Antipas it does not necessarily mean it was not in the text in their day but more likely it means that they read it as "against all" rather than the personal name Antipas. Remember also that the one like unto (a/the) Son of man, whom Yochanan sees in the first chapter, was slain from the foundation of the world, (Revelation 13:8). :)

tertullian of the second century knows the names of the seven churches and antipas
so
it was not a question of text

it was not in their copy at all

Wick Stick
October 26th, 2015, 01:40 PM
Perhaps you already have the answers in the yellow highlighted portions quoted above from other posters? Perhaps it is not what is written that changed but rather the reading. Before the "Antipas of Pergamum" event, (whether it is a true story or not) the reading was probably anti-pas, that is, "against all", (i.e. "the days against all"). However, after the "Antipas of Pergamum" event the reading suddenly changes to a personal name, "Antipas", because several hundred years later those who read the passage were not familiar enough with when exactly it was actually written, (by Yochanan the Immerser in the Macherus-Patmos fortress prison of Herod). Whether it was written originally in Hebrew-Aramaic, or whether originally in Greek, there is no doubt that the first Greek manuscript or copy would have been written in Uncial script which is all capitals without spaces. Thus the reading may be either anti-pas or Antipas with no change at all in the text. If Eusebius and Victorinus do not mention Antipas it does not necessarily mean it was not in the text in their day but more likely it means that they read it as "against all" rather than the personal name Antipas. Remember also that the one like unto (a/the) Son of man, whom Yochanan sees in the first chapter, was slain from the foundation of the world, (Revelation 13:8). :)
Anti- doesn't mean "against" in the sense of making war. It means it in the sense of "in place of."

Remember: Apposition; not Opposition.

Jarrod

Wick Stick
October 26th, 2015, 01:42 PM
tertullian of the second century knows the names of the seven churches and antipas
so
it was not a question of text

it was not in their copy at all
A later writer adds a gloss about an eminent personage of that particular church? Seems plausible enough.

Why is it important?

Jarrod

chrysostom
October 26th, 2015, 02:55 PM
A later writer adds a gloss about an eminent personage of that particular church? Seems plausible enough.

Why is it important?

Jarrod

it isn't important

it is just one piece of the puzzle that suggests there was more than one version of the apocalypse in the second century

I don't expect a lot of interest in this
but
I have spent a lot of time on this
and
do believe eusebius and victorinus were not aware of antipas
just as they were not aware of the seven churches

daqq
October 26th, 2015, 08:42 PM
Anti- doesn't mean "against" in the sense of making war. It means it in the sense of "in place of."

Remember: Apposition; not Opposition.

Jarrod

It can actually mean both and it does in this case, (I simply chose to use what someone else had written and went with that because it was not the main point to begin with). The days in which Messiah died in our place, (anti) were also the days against all: for thus I judge, and I have Paul with me in this, that if one died for all, then surely all died in the great Day of Atonement at Golgotha, yea, even every living soul in the sea died, (Revelation 16:3). :)

daqq
October 27th, 2015, 12:19 AM
Anti- doesn't mean "against" in the sense of making war. It means it in the sense of "in place of."

Remember: Apposition; not Opposition.

Jarrod

Here are some examples of "anti" as used in a compound word, (such as Antipas) where it is used to denote opposition:

Matthew 5:25
25. Agree with thine adversary [GSN#0476 anti-dikos] quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary [GSN#0476 anti-dikos] deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Strong's Ref. #476
Romanized antidikos
Pronounced an-tid'-ee-kos
from GSN0473 and GSN1349; an opponent (in a lawsuit); specially, Satan (as the arch-enemy):
KJV--adversary.

Strong's Ref. #473
Romanized anti
Pronounced an-tee'
a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):
KJV--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.

Original Strong's Ref. #1349
Romanized dike
Pronounced dee'-kay
probably from GSN1166; right (as self-evident), i.e. justice (the principle, a decision, or its execution):
KJV--judgment, punish, vengeance.

Thus the compound word "anti-dikos" has the meaning of an adversary or opponent, (against). Truly the Herodians are looked at in such a way, as Yeshua even calls Herod Antipas "that fox", and what hides in fox holes in the Septuagint? That would be the Amorites, (devils in the doctrine of Yeshua). In Luke 8:26 we find another such compound usage:

Luke 8:26 KJV
26. And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against [GSN#0495 anti-peran] Galilee.

Original Strong's Ref. #495
Romanized antiperan
Pronounced an-tee-per'-an
from GSN0473 and GSN4008; on the opposite side:
KJV--over against.

So when anti is employed with another word, to make a compound word, it can indeed be meant in the sense of opposition, even an adversary, even a devil. The compound word anti-pas is therefore now even more likely to have been a prophetic play on words because Messiah was crucified in the days of Herod Antipas and Yeshua is called the Faithful Witness two other places in the same book:

Revelation 1:5 Transliterated
5. kai apo Iesou Christou ho martus ho pistos ho prototokos ton nekron kai ho archon ton basileon tes ges: to agaponti hemas kai lusanti hemas ek ton hamartion hemon en to haimati autou

Revelation 2:13 Transliterated
13. Oida pou katoikeis hopou ho thronos tou Satana kai krateis to onoma mou kai ouk ernesoten pistin mou kai en tais hemerais antipas ho martus mou ho pistos mou hos apektanthe par humin hopou ho Satanas katoikei

Revelation 3:14 Transliterated
14. Kai to angelo tes en Laodikeia ekklesias grapson: Tade legei ho amen ho martus ho pistos kai alethinos he arche tes ktiseos tou Theou

The phrase "ho Martus ho Pistos", (though not including "mou" which is me, of me, my, mine, or mine own) appears in two other places where it is specifically written only concerning Yeshua, (even as a title). What then of the instance we find in Revelation 2:13? This fact should bear much weight in our understanding of that passage. Clearly there is a disconnect somewhere because it is highly unlikely that the author would use such terminology for another person when the same words are employed only for Yeshua elsewhere in the same writing. :)

Wick Stick
October 27th, 2015, 12:39 PM
Here are some examples of "anti" as used in a compound word, (such as Antipas) where it is used to denote opposition:

Matthew 5:25
25. Agree with thine adversary [GSN#0476 anti-dikos] quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary [GSN#0476 anti-dikos] deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Strong's Ref. #476
Romanized antidikos
Pronounced an-tid'-ee-kos
from GSN0473 and GSN1349; an opponent (in a lawsuit); specially, Satan (as the arch-enemy):
KJV--adversary.

Strong's Ref. #473
Romanized anti
Pronounced an-tee'
a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):
KJV--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.

Original Strong's Ref. #1349
Romanized dike
Pronounced dee'-kay
probably from GSN1166; right (as self-evident), i.e. justice (the principle, a decision, or its execution):
KJV--judgment, punish, vengeance.

Thus the compound word "anti-dikos" has the meaning of an adversary or opponent, (against). Truly the Herodians are looked at in such a way, as Yeshua even calls Herod Antipas "that fox", and what hides in fox holes in the Septuagint? That would be the Amorites, (devils in the doctrine of Yeshua). In Luke 8:26 we find another such compound usage:

Luke 8:26 KJV
26. And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against [GSN#0495 anti-peran] Galilee.

Original Strong's Ref. #495
Romanized antiperan
Pronounced an-tee-per'-an
from GSN0473 and GSN4008; on the opposite side:
KJV--over against.

So when anti is employed with another word, to make a compound word, it can indeed be meant in the sense of opposition, even an adversary, even a devil. The compound word anti-pas is therefore now even more likely to have been a prophetic play on words because Messiah was crucified in the days of Herod Antipas and Yeshua is called the Faithful Witness two other places in the same book:

Revelation 1:5 Transliterated
5. kai apo Iesou Christou ho martus ho pistos ho prototokos ton nekron kai ho archon ton basileon tes ges: to agaponti hemas kai lusanti hemas ek ton hamartion hemon en to haimati autou

Revelation 2:13 Transliterated
13. Oida pou katoikeis hopou ho thronos tou Satana kai krateis to onoma mou kai ouk ernesoten pistin mou kai en tais hemerais antipas ho martus mou ho pistos mou hos apektanthe par humin hopou ho Satanas katoikei

Revelation 3:14 Transliterated
14. Kai to angelo tes en Laodikeia ekklesias grapson: Tade legei ho amen ho martus ho pistos kai alethinos he arche tes ktiseos tou Theou

The phrase "ho Martus ho Pistos", (though not including "mou" which is me, of me, my, mine, or mine own) appears in two other places where it is specifically written only concerning Yeshua, (even as a title). What then of the instance we find in Revelation 2:13? This fact should bear much weight in our understanding of that passage. Clearly there is a disconnect somewhere because it is highly unlikely that the author would use such terminology for another person when the same words are employed only for Yeshua elsewhere in the same writing. :)
It still means in place of, or in the position apposite. You just picked a couple other roots that skew that way...

Anti-dikos is literally "sitting across from justice" evoking the ancient judicial system in which the plaintiff sits on the judge's left and the defendant on the right. Hence the verses "come sit at my right hand," indicating the vindication of the defendant.

Anti-peran is literally "sitting across from the face," so it is the other face of a mountain, or the back of the head.

Sorry for the off-topic

Jarrod

daqq
October 27th, 2015, 03:12 PM
It still means in place of, or in the position apposite. You just picked a couple other roots that skew that way...

Anti-dikos is literally "sitting across from justice" evoking the ancient judicial system in which the plaintiff sits on the judge's left and the defendant on the right. Hence the verses "come sit at my right hand," indicating the vindication of the defendant.

Anti-peran is literally "sitting across from the face," so it is the other face of a mountain, or the back of the head.

Sorry for the off-topic

Jarrod

The meanings of names are important in the scripture and often given far less weight than they should be given. In this case the thread title is "antipas" so I do not see how this is off topic being that "anti" is half of the name of the thread title. In addition the only real way to understand the meanings of names and words from two thousand year old writings, from other cultures, is by the context in which they are written. Therefore I will post the following to drive the point home and give you the last word concerning this subject matter if you so decide to respond. Otherwise, knowing that you are probably not going to change your mind, hopefully the following will at least make perfectly clear what was already stated from what is actually written in the scriptures if, by chance, someone else might have been interested:

Acts 18:6 KJV
6. And when they opposed themselves, [GSN#0498 anti-tassomai] and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Original Strong's Ref. #498
Romanized antitassomai
Pronounced an-tee-tas'-som-ahee
from GSN0473 and the middle voice of GSN5021; to range oneself against, i.e. oppose:
KJV--oppose themselves, resist.

Acts 28:19 KJV
19. But when the Jews spake against [GSN#0483 anti-lego] it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.

Acts 28:22 KJV
22. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against [GSN#0483 anti-lego].

Original Strong's Ref. #483
Romanized antilego
Pronounced an-til'-eg-o
from GSN0473 and GSN3004; to dispute, refuse:
KJV--answer again, contradict, deny, gainsay(-er), speak against.

2 Timothy 2:25 KJV
25. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; [GSN#0475 anti-diatithemai] if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Original Strong's Ref. #475
Romanized antidiatithemai
Pronounced an-tee-dee-at-eeth'-em-ahee
from GSN0473 and GSN1303; to set oneself opposite, i.e. be disputatious:
KJV--that oppose themselves.

Romans 7:23 KJV
23. But I see another law in my members, warring against [GSN#0497 anti-strateuomai] the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Original Strong's Ref. #497
Romanized antistrateuomai
Pronounced an-tee-strat-yoo'-om-ahee
from GSN0473 and GSN4754; (figuratively) to attack, i.e. (by implication) destroy:
KJV--war against.

Hebrews 12:4 KJV
4. Ye have not yet resisted [GSN#0478 anti-kathistemi] unto blood, striving against [GSN#0464 anti-agonizomai] sin.

Original Strong's Ref. #478
Romanized antikathistemi
Pronounced an-tee-kath-is'-tay-mee
from GSN0473 and GSN2525; to set down (troops) against, i.e. withstand:
KJV--resist.

Original Strong's Ref. #464
Romanized antagonizomai
Pronounced an-tag-o-nid'-zom-ahee
from GSN0473 and GSN0075; to struggle against (figuratively) ["antagonize"]:
KJV--strive against.

James 4:7 KJV
7. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist [GSN#0436 anti-histemi] the devil, and he will flee from you.

Original Strong's Ref. #436
Romanized anthistemi
Pronounced anth-is'-tay-mee
from GSN0473 and GSN2476; to stand against, i.e. oppose:
KJV--resist, withstand.

1 Peter 5:8 KJV
8. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary [GSN#0476 anti-dikos] the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

:sheep:

Wick Stick
October 28th, 2015, 10:26 AM
In addition the only real way to understand the meanings of names and words from two thousand year old writings, from other cultures, is by the context in which they are written.
Disagree. Like any other topic of study, you can brute-force it in this manner, studying every usage of the name and its context. Thayer's lexicon does.

Or, you can understand the theory of how the language works, and then apply the theory. I prefer the latter approach.

In practice, anti-something often ends up being opposed to the something, so the brute force method yields this up as a meaning. But from a language theory standpoint, anti refers to apposition or replacement. It just so happens that apposition is frequently due to opposition, if that makes any sense.

Jarrod

1Mind1Spirit
October 28th, 2015, 11:50 AM
Those old church father's took many liberties with changing scripture.


Nobody described days by the death of anyone.

Days were determined by a length of rule by a king.

Therefore the days were of Antipas, wherein Christ's faithful were slain.

The way it was translated......

Revelation 2:13 KJV
I know thy works, and where thou dwellest , even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth .

The way John most likely wrote it............

Revelation 2:13 KJV
I know thy works, and where thou dwellest , even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days of Antipas, wherein my faithful were slain among you, where Satan dwelleth .

Days were marked by the reign of kings not martyrs.

So when and who is Jesus talking about?

I would say the days of Herod Antipas, wherein were those who were vexed.



Acts 12:1 KJV

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.


Who were the faithful martyred in those days?

Was it not Stephen and James, not forgetting all those that the fire breathing Saul delivered to be killed?

daqq
October 28th, 2015, 01:18 PM
Days were marked by the reign of kings not martyrs.

So when and who is Jesus talking about?

I would say the days of Herod Antipas, wherein were those who were vexed.



Acts 12:1 KJV

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.


Who were the faithful martyred in those days?

Was it not Stephen and James, not forgetting all those that the fire breathing Saul delivered to be killed?

Certainly better than suggesting that "Antipas", the supposed faithful witness and martyr of 92CE, died "in the place of all", (just one more reason why neither Yochanan nor the Son of God would have used such a name, in such a way, in such a passage, in such a book). Also see: Prophets and Mythos #3 (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/prophets-and-mythos.7942489/#post-69558584), the verb αντειπας, (anteipas), is found in Codex Alexandrinus and not only there but several other manuscripts while it has been altered or "corrected" in Sinaiticus, (thus two of the four most important codices to Christianity do not contain "Antipas" while a third, Vaticanus, is not written in the original Uncial text because the end of the codex was lost). However the Herod of Acts 12:1 is assumed by most to have been Herod Agrippa I because of what is written at the end of that chapter. :)

1Mind1Spirit
October 28th, 2015, 01:25 PM
Certainly better than suggesting that "Antipas", the supposed faithful witness and martyr of 92CE, died "in the place of all", (just one more reason why neither Yochanan nor the Son of God would have used such a name, in such a way, in such a passage, in such a book).

:)



However the Herod of Acts 12:1 is assumed by most to have been Herod Agrippa I because of what is written at the end of that chapter. :)

Yes, I know what is assumed. :)

chrysostom
November 11th, 2015, 06:39 AM
antipas is not in the first version of the apocalypse
because
john the baptist wrote it

he was preparing the way

are you?

chrysostom
November 30th, 2015, 07:21 AM
tertulian in the third century
knows about antipas
but
victorinus and eusebius in the fourth century do not

they were not looking at the same apocalypse

chrysostom
December 18th, 2015, 04:07 AM
just another piece of the puzzle

chrysostom
January 9th, 2016, 06:06 AM
so who is antipas?

everready
January 9th, 2016, 01:18 PM
You got my curiosity up so i went looking, could this be antipas?

Antipas

"Antipas is the proper name of a man; so a son of Herod was called, even he that beheaded John, and mocked Christ: and there might be a man of this name at Pergamos, that might suffer martyrdom for the Gospel of Christ; and who was an emblem of the confessors, witnesses, and martyrs, that suffered for Christ, in this period of time, through their opposition to the popes of Rome; for Antipas is the contraction of Antipater, and is the same with Antipapas, or Antipappas, which signifies one that is against the pope,

an opposer of that holy father; and so intends all those that made head against him, upon his rising and revelation, and when he assumed the power he did to himself; such as the Waldenses and Albigenses particularly, who set themselves against him, openly declared that the pope was antichrist, and that his government was tyrannical, and his doctrines the doctrines of devils, abominable and fabulous.

They bore a faithful testimony against all his corruptions and innovations, and became martyrs in the cause of Christ, many thousands of them being slain for his sake within the dominions of this firstborn of Satan. The Alexandrian copy reads 'Anteipas'; and his name is left out in the Syriac and Arabic versions."

(The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

http://philologos.org/bpr/files/a004.htm?PageSpeed=noscript


everready

chrysostom
January 30th, 2016, 03:17 AM
this is just another piece of the puzzle

chrysostom
February 21st, 2016, 06:28 AM
eusebius
and
vitorinus
do not mention antipas
one reason for that
is
their version of the apocalypse did not mention antipas

chrysostom
March 19th, 2016, 05:40 AM
just another piece of the puzzle that fits

chrysostom
March 31st, 2016, 05:30 AM
ancient copies of the apocalypse did not have antipas in it

chrysostom
April 22nd, 2016, 05:04 AM
the dog that didn't bark

chrysostom
May 20th, 2016, 04:25 AM
just another clue
-a piece of the puzzle

chrysostom
June 18th, 2016, 04:57 AM
why wasn't antipas mentioned by eusebius and victorinus?

chrysostom
July 6th, 2016, 01:34 PM
antipas 2:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:13&version=KJV)

who is antipas? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum)

tertullian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian) 225 mentions him
victorinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorinus_of_Pettau) 303 does not
eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius) 340 does not

tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm) also knows about the seven churches
victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm) does not
eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) does not

the only reasonable explanation for this
is
there were two different versions of the apocalypse

one that had antipas and the seven churches
and
the other that did not


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

what we are looking at could be the third version of the apocalypse
-all three written by someone named john

SaulToPaul
July 6th, 2016, 02:06 PM
what we are looking at could be the third version of the apocalypse
-all three written by someone named john

:chuckle:

chrysostom
July 28th, 2016, 06:07 AM
stp is recapitulating
-he really does not have much to bring to the table now
-his stuff in all in the future
-and it is anything he wants it to be

chrysostom
August 22nd, 2016, 09:22 AM
:chuckle:

did you cut and paste that?

SaulToPaul
August 22nd, 2016, 02:08 PM
stp is recapitulating
-he really does not have much to bring to the table now
-his stuff in all in the future
-and it is anything he wants it to be

If it does not fit the past, it must be future.
It is the only option.
And you cannot leave out details to shoe horn it into the past.

Be honest in your approach.

chrysostom
September 25th, 2016, 04:29 AM
If it does not fit the past, it must be future.
It is the only option.
And you cannot leave out details to shoe horn it into the past.

Be honest in your approach.

there is another option
-and-
that is change your interpretation

SaulToPaul
September 26th, 2016, 06:05 AM
there is another option
-and-
that is change your interpretation

I will, if you change your interpretation of "Upon this rock I will build my church".

chrysostom
October 7th, 2016, 01:46 AM
I will, if you change your interpretation of "Upon this rock I will build my church".

is antipas in the future?

chrysostom
October 17th, 2016, 07:17 AM
is antipas in the future?

stp?

SaulToPaul
October 17th, 2016, 08:39 AM
stp?

Of course it is, because the day of the LORD is.

chrysostom
October 28th, 2016, 03:40 AM
Of course it is, because the day of the LORD is.

how do you watch the future?

SaulToPaul
October 28th, 2016, 05:56 AM
how do you watch the future?

You watch the present.

chrysostom
November 5th, 2016, 05:39 AM
You watch the present.

are you still looking for antipas?

chrysostom
November 19th, 2016, 05:45 AM
so how did tertulian get his copy of the apocalypse?
-
"There have been many works attributed to Tertullian in the past which have since been determined to be almost definitely written by others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian#Spurious_works)"
-
they list a number of questionable works but it does not include
-Scorpiace (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm)-
which has references to antipas and the seven churches

chrysostom
December 5th, 2016, 06:06 AM
eusebius and victorinus do not talk about antipas

chrysostom
December 12th, 2016, 10:34 AM
we know antipas is history

chrysostom
December 23rd, 2016, 05:59 AM
antipas 2:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:13&version=KJV)

who is antipas? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipas_of_Pergamum)

tertullian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian) 225 mentions him
victorinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorinus_of_Pettau) 303 does not
eusebius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius) 340 does not

tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm) also knows about the seven churches
victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm) does not
eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm) does not

the only reasonable explanation for this
is
there were two different versions of the apocalypse

one that had antipas and the seven churches
and
the other that did not


back to
the apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102616)

some know about antipas

SaulToPaul
December 23rd, 2016, 07:21 AM
:chuckle:

chrysostom
January 5th, 2017, 09:24 AM
:chuckle:

thanks for watching

chrysostom
January 20th, 2017, 08:04 AM
-martyr will get 355 hits
-antipas will get zero hits
-in church history by eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm)

chrysostom
February 22nd, 2017, 05:28 AM
the reason eusebius doesn't mention antipas
-is-
he was looking at a version of the apocalypse
-that-
doesn't have antipas
written by
john the baptist

SaulToPaul
February 22nd, 2017, 07:48 AM
written by
john the baptist

:chuckle:

chrysostom
March 22nd, 2017, 05:16 AM
thanks for watching

SaulToPaul
March 22nd, 2017, 06:05 AM
thanks for watching

:e4e:

Fiction is entertaining.

chrysostom
April 24th, 2017, 03:22 AM
the dog that didn't bark
-
you just need to ask why

chrysostom
May 27th, 2017, 11:15 AM
why didn't eusebius and victorinus know about antipas?

chrysostom
June 20th, 2017, 03:23 AM
antipas was not in the first version of the apocalypse
-
the churches weren't either

chrysostom
August 1st, 2017, 03:33 AM
a search for the word
church (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=church&begin=73&end=73)
in the apocalypse is interesting

chrysostom
August 24th, 2017, 04:20 AM
a search for the word
church (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=church&begin=73&end=73)
in the apocalypse is interesting

no churches in chapter 4 thru 21