That shares a sentiment with antiSemitism, to claim that because something is from Judaism, its current state of apostasy renders all of its teachings illegitimate. Jesus, however, said the opposite.
Matt 23.Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
So you reject the Prophets' presentation of what I call "the Jewish Hope" simply because Judaism taught it? No wonder you're Amil--Amil dismissed all hope that God's promise to Abraham, concerning Israel, would finally be fulfilled, resulting in Israel's ultimate restoration as a nation. What Amil basically did was exchange the "Jewish Hope" for the Hope of a newly-defined "Israel," the International Church.
Acts 1.6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
Clearly, Jesus indicated that *at the proper time* Israel would be restored as a godly kingdom. But you join Amil teaching which reverses Jesus' teaching, and is based on unbelief in the promises of God.
Rom 11.1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!...
26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."
It doesn't matter where Papias got his statement from, even though we likely know it was from Jewish sources. The point is, it was based on the "Jewish Hope" of a Kingdom in which Israel would never again be destroyed. That certainly didn't apply to the Church!
According to the Prophets, the Messianic Age was to be one of great blessing. Focusing on what Papias is quoting is a complete distraction from this. The plain fact is that you reject Jewish Prophecy of Israel's final restoration.
Amos 9.8 “Surely the eyes of the Sovereign Lord
are on the sinful kingdom.
I will destroy it
from the face of the earth.
Yet I will not totally destroy
the descendants of Jacob,”
declares the Lord...
13 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills,
14 and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.
“They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,”
says the Lord your God.
The Church was not scattered across the face of the earth--Israel was! And it is Israel, the physical nation, that will be restored, after it has suffered much destruction and a long exile. Then Israel will enter into a period of great blessing. If Jewish sources indicated this, it was likely based on prophecies like this, which clearly is biblical!
Eusebius wished, as an Amil, to discount the message of Premil.
Quoting extra-biblical material from Jewish Literature can be valid or invalid, depending on whether the material subscribes to biblical truth. In this case, the Jewish Hope is true and biblical. It is based on the Abrahamic Covenant which obviously is biblical and true.
This is purely an argument from silence, which has no merit whatsoever. We know the glorified Church will rule on earth during the Millennium.. But rule over who? I should think Papias viewed the rule of the Church as secondary to the fact they rule at all? Focusing on mortals during the Millennium hardly has value in comparison to what Papias would hope the current Church wishes to prepare for?
There was likely little wish to speculate on the details of the Millennium, but instead to focus on the hope of glory for the Church, as the Bible itself focuses on. Jesus said that future speculation must take 2nd place to present ministry. Is it any wonder the early Chliasts didn't write books like "Left Behind?"
Denouncing Papias' character and questioning his material is purely a distraction. And it isn't really even very Christian. You may question these things, but to do that to delegitimize his contributions in Christian history is not very respectable. The early Amils wished to do this, and I don't think that was very "Christian" either. They had a right to their opinion, but no right whatsoever to try to tarnish someone's reputation simply because they disagreed with his eschatology!
But you've picked up on this yourself. This is your entire style, to try to diminish others who have a different eschatology than you, insulting them and claiming they are heretical. You're disgusting.