Early Church Fathers and Revelation

[Reasonable]

How significant is it that the ECF’s apparently did not understand that the book of Revelation was fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem? Did John understand that the prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD and simply not inform anyone else? Or did John not understand it's meaning either? How could such a significant fulfillment of both Revelation and the Olivet discourse get lost in one generation, especially if the ECF's believed Revelation was written in the 60's.?

BTW, still reading the book on the fall of Jerusalem. He makes some good arguments for a date earlier than 96AD but not rock solid. Of course, any date in the 70's and 80's is also unallowed for preterist and I haven't gotten to the point where he starts identifying the date but I will be looking for what puts it before 70 as simply proving it was before 96 is not sufficient. Thanks again to the group for enlightening me. Even if I do not fully agree it is beneficial to learn this stuff.

[Bill the Cat]

You need to quote some ECFs in order for us to look at them and what their opinion was. Oh, I'm a DF and am trolling for refs too :teeth:

[Reasonable]

Today @ 08:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179223#post179223)
Bill the Cat:

You need to quote some ECFs in order for us to look at them and what their opinion was. Oh, I'm a DF and am trolling for refs too :teeth:

Meow Meow,
Actually, I only heard from another site that the ECF's didn't beleive in preterism and I thought I'd just throw it out and see if others came back with refutation. But then you come along and ask for Refs and make me go search the internet. Thanks alot!

Anyway, in about 2 minutes I came up with the following.

"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there WILL BE a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare" (Justin Martyr, 100-165 A.D., Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter LXXX.-)


Irenaeus-Student of John the Apostles's pupil Polycarp (AD. 120-202)
AGAINST HERESIES, BOOK V, XXX
"But he indicates the number of the name now, that WHEN this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: ..But when this Antichrist SHALL HAVE devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord WILL COME from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom"

AGAINST HERESIES, BOOK V, XXVI, 1
"In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what SHALL HAPPEN IN THE LAST TIMES, and concerning the ten kings WHO SHALL THEN arise, ... These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. THESE SHALL make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb SHALL OVERCOME them, because He is the Lord of lords, and King of kings. ... And THEY SHALL lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and SHALL GIVE their kingdom to the beast, and put the church to flight. AFTER THAT THEY SHALL be destroyed by the coming of our Lord."

AGAINST HERESIES, BOOK V, XXXV, 1
"For ALL these and other words were UNQUESTIONABLY SPOKEN IN REFERENCE TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE JUST, WHICH TAKES PLACE AFTER the coming of Antichrist, AND the destruction of all nations under his rule; IN [the times of] WHICH [resurrection] THE RIGHTEOUS SHALL reign on the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they SHALL become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and SHALL enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and those whom the Lord SHALL FIND IN THE FLESH, AWAITING HIM from heaven, and WHO HAVE suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one."

Hippolytus-Student of Iranaeus of the direct teaching lineage of John (AD. 170-236)
TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST, 5
"It is proper that we take the Holy Scriptures themselves in hand, and find out from them what, and of what manner, THE COMING of Antichrist is; ON WHAT OCCASION AND AT WHAT TIME that impious one shall be revealed; and whence and from what tribe (he shall come); and what his name is, which is indicated by the number in Scripture; and how he SHALL WORK error among the people, gathering them from the ends of the earth; and (how) he SHALL stir up tribulation and persecution against the saints; and how he SHALL glorify himself as God; and what his end SHALL BE; and how the sudden appearing of the Lord SHALL BE revealed from heaven; and what the conflagration of the whole world SHALL BE; and what the glorious and heavenly kingdom of the saints IS TO BE, when they reign together with Christ; and what the punishment of the wicked by fire."

TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST, 27,28
"As THESE THINGS, then, ARE IN THE FUTURE, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey. The golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexander's time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst"

TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST, 27,28
"With respect to his name, it is not in our power to explain it exactly, as the blessed John understood it and was instructed about it, but only to give a conjectural account of it; for when he appears, the blessed one will show us what we seek to know. ... Wherefore we ought neither to give it out as if this were certainly his name, nor again ignore the fact that he may not otherwise be designated. But having the mystery of God in our heart, we ought in fear to keep faithfully what has been told us by blessed prophets, in order that WHEN THOSE THINGS COME TO PASS, we may be prepared for them, and not be deceived. FOR WHEN THE TIMES ADVANCE, he too, of whom these things are said, will be manifest."

TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST, 60, 61, 64
"Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution WHICH IS to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus, "And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, ... And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church.... These things then, being come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope."

FRAGMENTS FROM COMMENTARIES, II, 7
"WHEN THE TIMES ARE FULFILLED, and the ten horns spring from the beast in the last (times), then Antichrist WILL APPEAR among them. WHEN HE MAKES war against the saints, and persecutes them, THEN MAY WE EXPECT the manifestation of the Lord from heaven."

The following were taken off the internet from a book by LeRoy Edwin Froom called ¡§The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers¡¨, Vol. 1, 207

The Epistle of Clement (95 AD) says ¡§Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, ¡¥Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;¡¦ and ¡¥The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look.¡¦¡¨ (p. 208)

In the Second Epistle we read, ¡§Let us then wait for the kingdom of God, from hour to hour, ¡K seeing that we know not the day of the appearing of God.¡¨ (Ibid.)

Eusebius quotes Papias as saying ¡§that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on earth.¡¨ (p. 216).

Justin Martyr wrote ¡§For He shall come on the clouds as the Son of Man, so Daniel foretold, and His angels shall come with Him.¡¨ (p. 232)

Irenaeus further stated:
„h The millennial kingdom would begin with the Second Coming of Christ.
„h The millennium would last 1000 years, the millennial Sabbath.
„h The new Jerusalem would come after the millennial kingdom.
„h The millennium, known popularly as chiliasm, ¡§was the prevailing view of this time.¡¨ (pp. 250-51)

So this is what I found so far. Anyway, just want to know if it's reasonable to think these men, so close to the "fulfillment" and the prophet, could get it all so messed up so quickly and so badly.

[Bill the Cat]

thanks for the info. I have all of Against Heresies and I'm gonna read it again when I get a moment to breathe.

[John Reece]

So this is what I found so far. Anyway, just want to know if it's reasonable to think these men, so close to the "fulfillment" and the prophet, could get it all so messed up so quickly and so badly.

Evidently so :smile: .

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ironically I just wrote something substantial on this yesterday. I will post it tonight.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 08:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179278#post179278)
Dee Dee Warren:

Ironically I just wrote something substantial on this yesterday. I will post it tonight.

Thanks DD! I look forward to reading it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Reasonable, I am going to repeat something I already said earlier, and add to it. Also I realize that what I had written is more towards preterism in general and not Revelation in particular.


I do not think this is the issue that it is made out to be and let me clumsily try to explain. A lot of non-Trinitarians will complain that it is not until Nicea that a really formulated doctrine of the Trinity was made... but that was because it was not challenged until then, and it was a huge essential of the faith that required formulation when challenged. Only certain portions of eschatology have been considered essential and in those we find tremendously early witness but things like timing of the Great Trib and Revelation were never considered essentials. However, there are scattered references, very early, that support the preterist contention, just as their are only scattered references to support almsot ANY eschatological view.... so I guess the short point is that this is not a preterist problem, it is a problem for almost any view (minus the essentials which preterists believe in anyways). I would say though that the first early and somewhat systematized preterist would be Eusebius, the Father of Church History, and noting his penchant for church history, he obviously saw no conflict with believing something that did not have unequivocal testimony from some, and even conflicting testimony from others.

Now remember the NT record. Paul himself taught many people and yet gross error arose such as Hymenaeus and Philetus who believed that the resurrection has past and Judaiziers and those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh. Close contact with apostolic teaching or even the events themselves is no protection from error. Though I know Phantaz disputes this, and I can counter his arguments, Iraneuas taught that Jesus lived to fifty years old….

For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old) and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation. Whom ought we rather to believe? These, being such as they are, or Ptolemy, who never beheld the Apostles, nor ever in his dreams attained to any vestige of an Apostle? (Against Heresies, 2:22:5)

And that the world would end in the sixth thousandth year since creation:

For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year." (Against Heresies, 5:28:3)

Neither of those things were true. Thus being a disciple of John was no surety against error. The fact is that the early church had quite an eclectic and at times highly confusing eschatology that was far from developed into any level that would allow such dogmatic statements from any position. I have abundant testimony that some early church fathers in fact did view the Olivet Discourse in at least some aspects (from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation") as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

FROM THE SECOND CENTURY

Justin Martyr- That the land of the Jews, then, was to be laid waste, hear what was said by the Spirit of prophecy. And the words were spoken as if from the person of the people wondering at what had happened. They are these: "Sion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation. The house of our sanctuary has become a curse, and the glory which our fathers blessed is burned up with fire, and all its glorious things are laid waste: and Thou refrainest Thyself at these things, and hast held Thy peace, and hast humbled us very sore." And ye are convinced that Jerusalem has been laid waste, as was predicted. And concerning its desolation, and that no one should be permitted to inhabit it, there was the following prophecy by Isaiah: "Their land is desolate, their enemies consume it before them, and none of them shall dwell therein." And that it is guarded by you lest any one dwell in it, and that death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it, you know very well.


FROM THE THIRD CENTURY

Origien - "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem."

Cyprian - That the Jews should lose Jerusalem, and should leave the land which they had received. In Isaiah: "Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers shall devour it in your sight; and the daughter of Zion shall be left deserted, and overthrown by foreign peoples, as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a keeper's lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a city which is besieged. And unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have been as Sodoma, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah." Also in the Gospel the Lord says: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not! Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate."

Hipplytus of Rome – Come, then, O blessed Isaiah; arise, tell us clearly what thou didst prophesy with respect to the mighty Babylon. For thou didst speak also of Jerusalem, and thy word is accomplished. For thou didst speak boldly and openly: "Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate as overthrown by many strangers. The daughter of Sion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city."

What then? Are not these things come to pass? Are not the things announced by thee fulfilled? Is not their country, Judea, desolate? Is not the holy place burned with fire? Are not their walls cast down? Are not their cities destroyed? Their land, do not strangers devour it? Do not the Romans rule the country? And indeed these impious people hated thee, and did saw thee asunder, and they crucified Christ. Thou art dead in the world, but thou livest in Christ."

Lactantius - "But He also opened to them all things which were about to happen, which Peter and Paul preached at Rome; and also said that it was about to come to pass, that after a short time God would send against them a king who would subdue the Jews, and level their cities to the ground, and besiege the people themselves, worn out with hunger and thirst. Then it should come to pass that they should feed on the bodies of their own children, and consume one another. Lastly, that they should be taken captive, and come into the hands of their enemies, and should see their wives most cruelly harassed before their eyes, their virgins ravished and polluted, their sons torn in pieces, their little ones dashed to the ground; and lastly, everything laid waste with fire and sword, the captives banished for ever from their own lands, because they had exulted over the well-beloved and most approved Son of God. And so, after their decease, when Nero had put them to death, Vespasian destroyed the name and nation of the Jews, and did all things which they had foretold as about to come to pass."

"Also Zechariah says: "And they shall look on me whom they pierced." Amos thus speaks of the obscuring of the sun: "In that day, saith the Lord, the sun shall go down at noon, and the clear day shall be dark; and I will turn your feasts into mourning, and your songs into lamentation." Jeremiah also speaks of the city of Jerusalem, in which He suffered: "Her sun is gone down while it was yet day; she hath been confounded and reviled, and the residue of them will I deliver to the sword." Nor were these things spoken in vain. For after a short time the Emperor Vespasian subdued the Jews, and laid waste their lands with the sword and fire, besieged and reduced them by famine, overthrew Jerusalem, led the captives in triumph, and prohibited the others who were left from ever returning to their native land. And these things were done by God on account of that crucifixion of Christ, as He before declared this to Solomon in their Scriptures, saying, "And Israel shall be for perdition and a reproach to the people, and this house shall be desolate; and every one that shall pass by shall be astonished, and shall say, Why hath God done these evils to this land, and to this house? And they shall say, Because they forsook the Lord their God, and persecuted their. King, who was dearly beloved by God, and crucified Him with great degradation, therefore hath God brought upon them these evils." For what would they not deserve who put to death their Lord, who had come for their salvation?

Tertullian - "Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin." And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

"Therefore, when these times also were completed, and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place "libations and sacrifices," which thenceforward have not been able to be in that place celebrated; for "the unction," too, was "exterminated" in that place after the passion of Christ. For it had been predicted that the unction should be exterminated in that place; as in the Psalms it is prophesied, "They exterminated my hands and feet." And the suffering of this "extermination" was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads, under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April, on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses. Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, "His blood be upon us, and upon our children;" and, "If thou dismiss him, thou art not a friend of Caesar;" in order that all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.

FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY


Chrysostrom – “Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it."

Eusebius – It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events. His words are as follows: "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day; For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain. But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt, while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which be uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground." And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, "For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again: "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."
If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish nation after the Saviour's passion and after the words which the multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be taken from their midst, it is not necessary to add anything to the account of the historian. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,--during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for the benefit of the readers of this work.

I could cite tons of stuff that Eusebius wrote in his Ecclesiastical History but I think what I have cited suffices to prove my point with him. He had quite a well developed preterism for the time... considering the nascent state of eschatological formulations in general at that time.

Athanasius – "And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:231; and shortly after He says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly.”

"He was like those sent by the householder to receive the fruits of the vineyard from the husbandmen; for he exhorted all men to render a return. But Israel despised and would not render, for their will was not right, nay moreover they killed those that were sent, and not even before the Lord of the vineyard were they ashamed, but even He was slain by them. Verily, when He came and found no fruit in them, He cursed them through the fig-tree, saying, "Let there be henceforth no fruit from thee" [Matt. 21:191; and the fig-tree was dead and fruitless, so that even the disciples wondered when it withered away.

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet: "I will take away from them the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the scent of myrrh, and the light of a lamp, and the whole land shall be destroyed" [Jer. 25:10]. For the whole service of the law has been abolished from them, and henceforth and forever they remain without a feast."

"So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come, Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time, because kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed. Moses also prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews shall stand until His time, saying, "A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a prince from his loins, until the things laid up for him shall come and the Expectation of the nations Himself." And that is why the Savior Himself was always proclaiming "The law and the prophets prophesied until John." So if there is still king or prophet or vision among the Jews, they do well to deny that Christ is come; but if there is neither king nor vision, and since that time all prophecy has been sealed and city and temple taken, how can they be so irreligious, how can they so flaunt the facts, as to deny Christ Who has brought it all about?.. What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the Goddenyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.


Now from a nonChristian perspective, Josephus interpreted the AD70 event as the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 – “In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and hat our country should be made desolate by them.” Antiquities 10:11:7

Now, it has been conceded by a premill author (Patrick Alan Boyd) that premill thought is difficult for find prior to Nicea yet that is the dominant view today. Dispensationalism certainly was nonexistent back then with abundant early testimony that the ECF viewed the Church as Israel (as I do). Interesting in certainly non-preterist ECF there were many who make the same error as futurists today, thinking that the Scriptures were speaking of their times. They got that wrong, so it should not be surprising when uninspired writers get things wrong, with the NT bearing witness that apostolic teaching was no foolproof safeguard.

Also we must remember that very little of the writings from the first century and early second century have survived. There is a lot that is not mentioned in the early writings that we do have. Of the earliest writings, many of them predate or may likely predate AD70 which disqualifies them from the discussion, though of course futurists will lean towards the later date generally. Such would include The Didache and 1 Clement, however there is compelling evidence to assign these documents to a pre-or at AD70 date so any future tense reference to Matthew 24 etc is moot for this discussion. However 1 Clement does continually speak of momentous events in “our own generation” seemingly echoing Jesus’ very clear time statement and stating that Paul taught righteousness “to the whole world” which is an echo of Matthew 24:14. We do have Eusebius’ recounting of an earlier account by Hegesippus in the 2nd century on the martyrdom of James in which James is recorded as stating that Jesus would come on the clouds of heaven, and Hegesippus’ implicit interpretation of that statement as the destruction of Jerusalem by following such narrative with, “Immediately after this, Vespasian invaded and took Judea.”

[eschaton]

Hi Dee Dee,

I'm new here and just getting my feet wet. Don't even really know how this board operates yet.

Anyway, from the quotes you give I get the feeling that preterism is about Jerusalem's destruction in 70AD. Isn't it true that most futurism has always pretty much agreed that Luke 21:20 has been fulfilled, and even that Mat 24:15 and Mark 13:14 are related to that? At least Augustine saw it that way I believe.

I was thinking that preterism was more about the events described in Revelation being fulfilled in the first century.

Nice to meet you.

Alan

[Dee Dee Warren]

Nice to meet you too Eschaton.... and yes I know that some or even most futurists see parts of the Discourse as fulfilled in AD70, but once they have done that they have sold the farm for Jesus says (Matthew 24:34 and parallels) that ALL those things would be fulfilled within the space of one generation. In fact the only unique datable event in that prophecy is the destruction of the city and temple then standing, irrevocably thrusting the rest of that prophecy into that same generational time span.

Now with Revelation, since preterists (and most futurists) believe that the bulk of Revelation is refering to the same event as the Discourse, then placing the Discourse at that time, also places Revelation at that time.

There is a five views strutured eschatology debate going on right now in the Wrestingling Ring with a commentary thread going on right here in Eschatology. You may wish to check that out.

[eschaton]

Thanks for the quick response Dee Dee.

I have browsed through the wrestlefest, but so far it seems to focus on the validity of dispensationalism. Since I'm not dispensational (or preterist) it hasn't been very intresting for me. I guess it will get better though.

I didn't know the ECF's were farmers at one time. For that matter, I guess all the theologians of note from Augustine through Luther and Calvin sold their farms too. There weren't any theologian/farmers until the last couple of hundred years I guess.

The literal interpretation of "this generation" is too legalistic for me. If Jesus literally referred to all those physically alive when He spoke, then there wasn't any hope for those He spoke to including the disciples, because He said they would be condemned (Mat 12:41, 42). He also said that "this generation" slew Zacharias son of Barachias, who lived 500 years earlier (Mat 23:34-36). So I don't believe Jesus was putting a literalistic spin on these things.

Thanks,
Alan

[Dee Dee Warren]

Actually there is no other way to interpret that phrase IMHO that is faithful to the text... if you would like to start another thread on that subject, I am sure myself and others would have quite a bit to say on that subject.

With the wrestefest, the other positions have not yet presented their positive case true, but it is proper that a lot of focus go on dispensationalism since that is the majority view.

[Bill the Cat]

Yeah, and don't you forget about it!! :egad:

[Reasonable]

Thanks for the post DD. I realize you were not specifically dealing with Revelation but this was good stuff anyway.



I do not think this is the issue that it is made out to be and let me clumsily try to explain. A lot of non-Trinitarians will complain that it is not until Nicea that a really formulated doctrine of the Trinity was made... but that was because it was not challenged until then, and it was a huge essential of the faith that required formulation when challenged.


I see your point but there is quite a bit of difference between the two scenarios. For the ECF’s to not talk about the Trinity is one thing but to directly teach something contrary to it would be a whole new ball game. In regards to preterism, a number of the ECF’s don’t just ‘not talk about it’, they actually go against it, from what I’ve seen.



Now remember the NT record. Paul himself taught many people and yet gross error arose such as Hymenaeus and Philetus who believed that the resurrection has past and Judaiziers and those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh. Close contact with apostolic teaching or even the events themselves is no protection from error. Though I know Phantaz disputes this, and I can counter his arguments, Iraneuas taught that Jesus lived to fifty years old….


I don’t dispute it. But to me there is a big difference between getting one area wrong, say Jesus’ age, and getting a whole prophecy, and a major one at that, wrong. We all make small goofs in our writing. We see fellow Trinitarians get one small area wrong regarding the Trinity and the relationship of the Father to the Son but in general they are correct on the Trinity. But if they go way out and start denying the Trinity, etc., then it’s a bigger issue. And from what I’ve seen, it wasn’t just Iraneus but many ECF’s who appear to see Revelation different from Preterist. One may be a fluke and an error but a number of them could mean something else.



I have abundant testimony that some early church fathers in fact did view the Olivet Discourse in at least some aspects (from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation") as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.


Thanks for the quotes. I also believe there was a minor fulfillment in the fall of Jerusalem. But these quotes do not contradict the other quotes. Justin Martyr, while believing the prophecy had a fulfillment in Jerusalem, also believed in a future fulfillment and a 1000 year reign. And I may be wrong but wouldn’t most DF’s agree with Origin’s quote you shared? Hipplytus obviously believed in a first century fulfillment and a latter date fulfillment, based on both your quotes of him and mine.



I could cite tons of stuff that Eusebius wrote in his Ecclesiastical History but I think what I have cited suffices to prove my point with him. He had quite a well developed preterism for the time... considering the nascent state of eschatological formulations in general at that time.


I have no problem with Eusebius’ statement as I agree with what he said. This may mean that I either don’t understand what it means to be a Preterist or I am a Preterist and do not know it. I do believe in a first century fulfillment and a future fulfillment. The quotes you provide show a definite first century fulfillment according to the ECF’s but they do not deny a latter fulfillment. In fact, some of these same men you quote to show an early fulfillment also speak of a latter fulfillment.



… Interesting in certainly non-preterist ECF there were many who make the same error as futurists today, thinking that the Scriptures were speaking of their times. They got that wrong, so it should not be surprising when uninspired writers get things wrong, with the NT bearing witness that apostolic teaching was no foolproof safeguard.


And again, I don’t hold the ECF’s as the ultimate proof on this subject and I know they were wrong in a number of areas. They definitely saw a 1st century fulfillment but is there anyone today who doesn’t? I believe even RevSteve, who seems to be a very literalist guy, admits to a 1st century application. It does appear that these men, at least a significant number of them, saw a 2nd fulfillment. While it’s not slamming the door on Preterism, it does present one more obstacle just as if we saw the ECF’s specifically denying Jesus was God, this would be problematic for the Trinity as well. So I will weigh in on this point as well. I did find an awful lot of books on Preterism on the web and hopefully will buy one soon to read up more on it. Thanks for your work.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Be careful of what you find on the Web, most of what is published is heretical hyperpreterism.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 07:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=180385#post180385)
Dee Dee Warren:

Be careful of what you find on the Web, most of what is published is heretical hyperpreterism.

And in 10 words or less (plus or minus a few), what is the difference between the two?

[Dee Dee Warren]

the heretics deny the future bodily resurrection, the future bodily return of Christ, the future consummation (sin goes on and on, and the earth remains under the curse) and the future final judgment

you might want to read the links in my signature line....

[adam.naranjo]

To all Futurists,


I didn't know the ECF's were farmers at one time. For that matter, I guess all the theologians of note from Augustine through Luther and Calvin sold their farms too. There weren't any theologian/farmers until the last couple of hundred years I guess.

First of all let my point you in the direction of hundreds of quotes from early church fathers on the fulfillment of prophecy (particularly matt 24;mark 13;luke 21 and Revelation) and the significance of a.d. 70:

Preterist archive -- keep in mind what DD said, some of these people are HyperPreterists. (http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html)
(Never the less, they have a great resource)
Go to the "Study by verse" section halfway down the page for ECF's commentaries on particular passages (http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/index.html)


________________________________________________________________

I will throw out some quotes in the meantime:
(some of these may have already been quoted, so consider mine a topical/commentary aproach. p.s. - not all of these are early fathers, I threw in calvin and wesley as well.)

1. The abomination of Desolation

St. Athanasius on the abomination of desolation(296-372)
"And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:23]; and shortly after He says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly." (Defense of His Flight [11])


Augustine's commentary on Matthew 24:15 "The Abomination of Desolation" (379)
"Luke to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand (xxi. 20). For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)


Chrysostom on the Abomination of Desolation (379)
"For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

"Or because he who had desolated the city and the temple, placed his statue within the temple." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

For He brought in also a prophecy, to confirm their desolation, saying, "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that readeth understand."(12) He referred them to Daniel. And by" abomination" He meaneth the statue of him who then took the city, which he who desolated the city and the temple placed within the temple, wherefore Christ calleth it, "of desolation." Moreover, in order that they might learn that these things will be while some of them are alive, therefore He said, "When ye see the abomination of desolation." (Of Matthew 24:1,2)

"And see how He relates the war, by the things that seem to be small setting forth how intolerable it was to be. For, "Then,"saith He, "let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains." Then, When? When these things should be, "when the abomination of desolation should stand in the holy place." Whence He seems to me to be speaking of the armies." (Homily 76, Number 1)


Clement of Alexandria on the Abomination of Desolation and the Tribulation (Daniel, Olivet, and Revelation)(Second Century)
"For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction... These two thousand three hundred days make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 334)

Eusebius Pamphilius on the Abomination of Desolation (325)
"But the number of calamities which every where fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,--all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,-- all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus." (Book III, Ch. 5)

2. Matt 10:23 -- you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.
But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you , you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." Matthew 10:17-23

John Wesley (1754)
"Till the Son of man be come - To destroy their temple and nation." (in loc.)

Notice the recent change to the NIV Study Bible
NIV Study Bible Notes (1985 Edition)
"The saying [Matthew 10:23] seems to teach that the gospel will continue to be preached to the Jews until Christ's second coming." (Matt 10:23)

NIV Study Bible Notes (1995 Edition)
Matthew 10:23: "Jesus' saying here is probably best understood as referring to his coming in judgment on the Jews when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in A.D. 70." (Matt 10:23)

3. On Matthew 24:14 -- "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world...then shall the end come."
(and oikoumene = 'world)) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Chrysostom (375)
"After this again, what is more grievous than all, they shall not have so much as the consolation from love. Then indicating, that these things will in no degree harm the noble and the firm, He saith, Fear not, neither be troubled. For if ye show forth the patience that becomes you, the dangers will not prevail over you. And it is a plain proof of this, that the word shall surely be preached everywhere in the world, so much shall ye be above the things that alarm you. For, that they may not say, how then shall we live? He said more, Ye shall both live and preach everywhere. Therefore He added moreover, "And this gospel shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come,"(7) of the downfall of Jerusalem.

"For in proof that He meant this, and that before the taking of Jerusalem the gospel was preached, hear what Paul saith, "Their sound went into all the earth;"(8) and again, "The gospel which was preached to every creature which is under Heaven."(9) And seest thou him running from Jerusalem unto Spain ? And if one took so large a portion, consider what the rest also wrought. For writing to others also, Paul again saith con-coming the gospel, that "it is bringing forth fruit, and growing up in every creature which is under Heaven."(10)

"But what meaneth, "For a witness to all nations?" Forasmuch as though it was everywhere preached, yet it was not everywhere believed. It was for a witness, He saith, to them that were disbelieving, that is, for conviction, for accusation, for a testimony; for they that believed will bear witness against them that believed not, and will condemn them. And for this cause, after the gospel is preached in every part of the world, Jerusalem is destroyed, that they may not have so much as a shadow of an excuse for their perverseness. For they that saw His power shine throughout every place, and in an instant take the world captive, what excuse could they then have for continuing in the same perverseness? For in proof that it was everywhere preached at that time, hear what Paul saith, "of the gospel which was preached to every creature which is under Heaven."(11)

"Which also is a very great sign of Christ's power, that in twenty or at most thirty years the word had reached the ends of the world. "After this therefore," saith He, "shall come the end of Jerusalem." For that He intimates this was manifested by what follows." (Homilies)

Clement of Rome (Late 1st Century)
THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.
"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.(11) Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church](3) have been persecuted and put to death.(12) Let us set before our eyes the illustrious(13) apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity,(14) compelled(15) to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west,(16) and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.(17) Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience." (Chap. V.-- The First Epistle to the Corinthians)

Eusebius (325)
"THUS, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun, quickly illumined the whole world;[1] and straightway, in accordance with the divine Scriptures,[2] the voice of the inspired evangelists and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Book II, Ch.III.)

"But the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour, being scattered over the whole world, Thomas, according to tradition, received Parthia as his alloted region; Andrew received Scythia, and John, Asia, where, after continuing for some time, he died at Ephesus. Peter appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bythinia, Cappapodica and Asia, to the Jews that were scattered abroad" (Book III, Ch. 1)

"The same historian records another fact still more wonderful than this. He says that a certain oracle was found in their sacred writings which declared that at that time a certain person should go forth from their country to rule the world. He himself understood that this was fulfilled in Vespasian. But Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part of it which was subject to the Romans. With better right could it be applied to Christ; to whom it was said by the Father, "Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession." At that very time, indeed, the voice of his holy apostles "went throughout all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." (Book III, Ch. 8)

4. Matthew 24:34 -- "This generation shall not pass away 'till al lthese things be fulfilled"
"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled."

John Calvin
"The meaning therefore is: "This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation will not experience." (in loc.)

"For within fifty years the city was destroyed and the temple was razed, the whole country was reduced to a hideous desert, and the obstinacy of the world rose up against God." (Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 3, trans. by William Pringle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 151.


Chrysostom (375)
"But of wars in Jerusalem is He speaking; for it is not surely of those without, and everywhere in the world; for what did they care for these? And besides, He would thus say nothing new, if He were speaking of the calamities of the world at large, which are happening always. For before this, were wars, and tumults, and fightings; but He speaks of the Jewish wars coming upon them at no great distance, for henceforth the Roman arms were a matter of anxiety. Since then these things also were sufficient to confound them, He foretells them all.

Therefore He saith, they shall come not by themselves or at once, but with signs. For that the Jews may not say, that they who then believed were the authors of these evils, therefore hath He told them also of the cause of their coming upon them. "For verily I say unto you," He said before, "all these things shall come upon this generation," having made mention of the stain of blood on them. " (Homilies)

Clement of Alexandria (A.D.150-215)
"But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and every-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: "See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . ." And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken.63 (Clementine Homilia, 3:15. See Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8:241.)

5. All of Matt 24:1-35
(30 “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.)

St. Chrysostom on the transition at v35 (A.D.325)
"When the Lord had finished all that related to Jerusalem , He came in the rest to His own coming, and gives them signs thereof, useful not for them only, but for us and for all who shall be after us.[v36 and following]

As above, the Evangelist said, "In those days came John the Baptist," [Matt 3:1] not implying immediately after what had gone before, but thirty years after; so here, when He says, "Then," He passes over the whole interval of time between the taking of Jerusalem and the beginnings of the consummation of the world." (Matthew 24:23, Golden Chain)


[b]6. The Beast, 666, Man of Sin, and Nero
N (50) R (200) W (6) N (50) Q (100) S (60) R (200) = 666


http://www.preteristarchive.com/images/Charts/a-chil1.gif


Revelation 17:10

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space."

1. Julius Caesar (49-44 B. C.)
2. Augustus (31 B. C.-A.D. 14)
3. Tiberius (A.D. 14-37)
4. Gaius, also known as Caligula (A.D. 37-41)
5. Claudius (A.D. 41-54)
6. Nero (A.D. 54-68)
7. Galba (A.D. 68-69)
8. Otho (A.D. 69)
9. Vitellius (A.D. 69)
10. Vespasian (A.D. 69-79)

They are seven kings; five have fallen, (Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius),

one is (Nero),

the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while (Galba, who reigned from June, 68 to January, 69)

Augustine on the man of lawlessness - 2 thess 2:3-7
"What means the declaration, that the mystery of iniquity already works?... Some suppose this to be spoken of the Roman emperor, and therefore Paul did not speak in plain words, because he would not incur the charge of calumny for having spoken evil of the Roman emperor: although he always expected that what he had said would be understood as applying to Nero."
2 Thess :v3-7 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and [b]the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.


Clement of Alexandria on Desolation, Tribulation, and Revelation 11:2 (42 months 3 1/2 years) (2nd Century)
"We have still to add to our chronology the following, -- I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him, Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away."

"These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned. And on this account Daniel says, "Blessed is he that cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." For up to these days was war, and after them it ceased. And this number is demonstrated from a subsequent chapter, which is as follows: "And from the time of the change of continuation, and of the giving of the abomination of desolation, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." " (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 334)



There are so many quotes and furthure information about Nero, often called "the beast" during his reign, that I don't have time for it...URL=http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/n/nero_emperor-antichrist.html]nero, the beast[/URL]

7. The Millennium

Eusebius (A.D.325)
"This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Book III, Ch. 39)

Epiphanes (315-403)
"There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St.John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense." (Heresies, 77:26.)

Justin Martyr on the kingdom and chialism(A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)

"Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... the support from the Apologists too, is extreamly meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed, (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).


Adam

[eschaton]

Hi Adam,

I think your quotes from church fathers coincide very well with Dee Dee's.

You quote my post, but I don't think you are addressing the point I try to raise in messages 9 and 11.

All due respect, but I think the quotes you give are somewhat misleading. They make it sound like the people quoted were preterists, and they were not.

I acknowledged to Dee Dee that many including Augustine believed that the abomination of desolation was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. But Augustine was a futurist who did not believe Nero was the antichrist. His was the official position of the church, even through Luther and Calvin who were both historicists, as were most all of the reformers.

Here are some quotes of my own from Augustine.

But just as, I think,
they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the
records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything
more than that they so happened, so I think those very
daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents
lies in allegorical significations. (City of God Book
XVII ch3)

We have already said that by the beast is well
understood the wicked city. His false prophet is either
Antichrist or that image or figment of which we have spoken
in the same place. (Book XX ch14)

And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body,
that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with
him their prince; and they also think that we should
render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not "in
the temple of God," but "for" or "as the temple of
God," as if he himself were the temple of God, the
Church. (Book XX ch19)

For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who
is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the
eternal kingdom of the Son of man, that is to say, of
Christ, (Book XX ch23)

"In connection with the last
judgment, therefore, we who believe can be sure of the
following truths: Elias the Thesbite will return; the Jews
will believe; Antichrist will persecute the church;
Christ will be the judge; the dead will rise; the good
will be separated from the wicked; the world will
suffer from fire, but will be renewed. Of course, what
we believe is the simple fact that all these things
are to be; but how and in what sequence the events
are to occur we must leave to future experience,
which alone can teach these truths so much better than
human intelligence can at present understand. My own
view is that they will occur in the order I have just
mentioned." (Book XX ch30)

Thanks,
Alan

[adam.naranjo]

Eschaton,

_______________________Clarification

Perhaps I misread your quote. It sounded like you were saying that there are no early church fathers who held preterist understandings of certain passages in Scripture. It sounded like you were saying that up until Luther and Calvin the church was unanimously premill.

(I did not mean to make it sound as if these historic figures were preterists. Until recently there was not such thing as Preterist or Futurist. There were only preterist interpretations and futurist interpretations)

If that's the case then you should know that not even dispensational scholors would agree with you. Everyone knows that within church history various parts of premill, postmill, and amill have been held to. Furthermore, its nearly impossible to say that someone was uniformly Postmill, or premill, or amill. Many historic figures had both preterist and premill interpretations of various passages. To call the reformers 'historicists' is to over simplifiy the case. Many of the reformers also had Postmillennial interpretations of various passages -- interpretation that do not fit into an historicist or premill scheme.


_____________________Whats my point?

SO let me break down some imporant points:

1. Both Futurists and Preterists admit that neither of their positions were systematically expressed, by any of the church fathers, the way they are today.

2. Almost ALL figures in church history had both Preterist and Futurist interpretations of various passages.

2.a. Remember that Preterist's (orthodox) do believe in furture events yet to come.

3. Neither position can CLAIM historic Church figures as their own -- completely anyway. Because even Justin Martyr had made some amill souding statments.

4. The discussion is most profitable if we look at the Church fathers statements regarding specific passages and subjects.

5. My main point is simply that preterist interpretations of certain passages can easily be found in the ECF and even through out the history of the Church. SO my quotes were in no way to make it sound as though the fathers were Preterists or futurists. However, its important to note that they somtimes interpret certain passages, that are somewhat essential to the futurist position, in a preterist way.

I believe that when all is said and done, in the early church you will find MORE preterist interpretations of specific passages. And as the Church evolved, and especially as the enlightenment (modernist thinking) sunk in, the Church began to interpret scriptures within THEIR PRESENT contexts. This created a sad state for the Church, but thanks to various forms of modern criticism we have gotten back into the habbit of interpreting scripture according to its historical context. Also, after great study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrapha, and other early documents, we have learned a LOT more about 2 temple Judaism and the social context of the time. (I enjoy studying these issues)
These studies have helped considerably and have lead many scholors to lean towards a preterist position -- not to mention the fact that scholors are running from dispensationalism like the plague. (Less and less scholors are premillennial --- Thank God!)



_____________________ About Augustine

Before I jump into Augustine I have to say one thing. Augustine was writing a certain type of exposition of these scriptures. He was writing within the context and time frames of the passages themeselves -- So one must be carefull when interpreting him. In other words, when he says something like, "and then he shall be revealed" he is not stating that antichrist is yet to come. What he is saying is what the PASSAGE says, which is simply that the man of Lawlessness will be revealed. He himself is not making a reference to time, but rather is discussing the meaning of the passage itself -- within its own context. For example, I could say that Christ taught in Matt 24 that a great time of tribulation will come on the land. I'm not saying that the time is yet to come, I'm saying that CHRIST was saying that the time was yet to come.



But just as, I think,
they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the
records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything
more than that they so happened, so I think those very
daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents
lies in allegorical significations. (City of God Book
XVII ch3)


As you yourself noted on the Parusia@yahoogroups, the context of this passage has to do with the Old Testament. Augustine was arguing against the total 'spiritualization' of the whole Old Testament. (Origen did this) Postmillennial Preterists agree whole heartedly.




We have already said that by the beast is well
understood the wicked city. His false prophet is either
Antichrist or that image or figment of which we have spoken
in the same place. (Book XX ch14)

Postmill Preterists do believe that the Beast in revelation is both a man and a "city". Revelation speaks of the beast as an individual and as a corperate entity. THe preterist view makes much sense of this.




And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body,
that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with
him their prince; and they also think that we should
render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not "in
the temple of God," but "for" or "as the temple of
God," as if he himself were the temple of God, the
Church. (Book XX ch19)


If you read this whole book you'll see that Augustine only offers conjectures of the theologians of his day. I also quoted from this chapter, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work," he alluded to Nero". The fact is, Augustine was extremely confused about this portion of scirpture. One thing is for sure, he interpreted scripture to say that there was ONE final resurrection at the end of time. Not a rapture/resurrection and then another resurrection 1,000 years later. He also seems to call the Church the new temple, and does not expect a new temple to be built. Another thing is that Augustine seems to be very confused about Satan, the Beast, the antichrist etc...He seems to mix a lot of passages and make them somewhat incomprehensable, this is why he is somewhat of an "Idealist". (without wanting to button him in)



___________________What was Augustine?

With regard to the City of God, Augustine does not help the premillennial or postmillennial systems per se. However, he does hold specifically that the Church NOW is the kingdom. He also holds some other somewhat confusing ideas. To be honest I don't know that he really knew exactly what he believed. Whenever I read Augustine, I sense doubt and trepidation. He also looked forward to a Golden age of the Kingdom/Church, where the Church has been succesfull in the great commission, and the world is 'christianized'.

When all is said and done, my readings of augustine have led me to believe that he was a Postmillennialist with an aproach to revelation that would best be described as "Idealist" meets "preterist". Some will call this histoiricist. However, historicism is a much more systematized and specific view of prophecy -- holding to a definate millennial reign to come and two bodily resurrections. Historicist's have specific events that they believe match up with each part of revelation, chronologically. Augustine however was NOT choronoloical -- and did not spell out hundreds of certain fulfillments like the historicists. However, "Idealists", amillennialists and Historicists have a few things in common. And Augustine was a kind of jumble of these. He held to the amill/postmill "Kingdom now" and his 'city of God' idea was somewhat of an Idealist view.

The followign quote is best I can do at pulling out a short summation of Augustines view of the kingdom. Augustine has postmillennial preterist/Idealist view of the the kingdom --that it is now, and the church will advance until it comes to a glorious time within the present life before the second resurrection (the bodily resurrection). (Granted Augustine did not have a systematized preterist view -- he was only preterist in that he viewed the destruction of Jerusalem to be a 'coming' of Christ. He was a preterist/Postmillenialist/Idealist in his style of interpretation -- in other words, it depends on which passage your looking at.) HE believed that the Church now judges and reigns in the kingdom, and that we war against the city of evil. This 'city of God' is where the "Idealist" interpretation comes in. The two 'city' approach.

"It is then of this kingdom militant, in which conflict with the enemy is still maintained, and war carried on with warring lusts, or government laid upon them as they yield, until we come to that most peaceful kingdom in which we shall reign without an enemy, and it is of this first resurrection [a spiritual resurrection] in the present life, that the Apocalypse speaks in the words just quoted. For, after saying that the devil is bound a thousand years and is afterwards loosed for a short season, it goes on to give a sketch of what the Church does or of what is done in the Church in those days, in the words, "And I saw seats and them that sat upon them, and judgment was given." It is not to be supposed that this refers to the last judgment, but to the seats of the rulers and to the rulers themselves by whom the Church is now governed."


As even Christianity today puts it:
Christianity Today
"In City of God, Augustine (354-430) viewed the thousand years of Revelation 20 not as some special future time but "the period beginning with Christ's first coming," that is, the age of the Christian church. Throughout this age, the saints reign with Christ—not in the fullness of the coming kingdom prepared for those blessed by God the Father, but "in some other and far inferior way." This position, often called "amillennial," became the view of most Christians in the West, including the Reformers, for almost 1,500 years."

( I tend to disagree with calling augustine and some of the reformers amillennial, I think they were more postmillennial -- he had an optimistic view of the future of the Church, granting the final apostacy, which Postmillers also agree with.)

At the beginning of chapter 5 notice that augustine does not borrow from Matt 24, Mark 13 or Luke 21 in refference to the "final judgment" and the reason is because Augustine seems to hold to 4 "comings". Obviously the first coming of Christ for his earthly ministry, but also, a 2nd coming to derstroy Jerusalem, a 3rd continous "coming" in the Church, and a final coming on the final day of human history to Judge the living and the dead and to usher in the eternal state.

"Many passages I omit, because, though they seem to refer to the last judgment, yet on a closer examination they are found to be ambiguous, or to allude rather to some other event,--whether to that coming of the Saviour which continually occurs in His Church, that is, in His members, in which comes little by little, and piece by piece, since the whole Church is His body, or to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. For when He speaks even of this, He often uses language which is applicable to the end of the world and that last and great day of judgment, so that these two events cannot be distinguished unless all the corresponding passages bearing on the subject in the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are compared with one another,--for some things are put more obscurely by one evangelist and more plainly by another,--so that it becomes apparent what things are meant to be referred to one event"

Here Augustine has the last three. The final judgment, which is the subject at hand, the continuos "coming" in the Church, and the coming to destroy Jerusalem.



____________________Agree or Disagree?

"In connection with the last
judgment, therefore, we who believe can be sure of the
following truths: Elias the Thesbite will return; the Jews
will believe; Antichrist will persecute the church;
Christ will be the judge; the dead will rise; the good
will be separated from the wicked; the world will
suffer from fire, but will be renewed. Of course, what
we believe is the simple fact that all these things
are to be; but how and in what sequence the events
are to occur we must leave to future experience,
which alone can teach these truths so much better than
human intelligence can at present understand. My own
view is that they will occur in the order I have just
mentioned." (Book XX ch30)

Preterist's actually agree with this, except 'Elias'. However, Preterists believe that the Chronology is not difficult to understand.

:: EDIT ::
I should clarify that preterists do not believe that "anti-Christ" will Persecute the Church. Rather, when Satan is released he will gather many who are "Anti-Christ" and they will Come against God's people, However, Christ will put an end to that. (Anyone who is against Christ is anti-Christ)


____________Rebuilding a temple, or was the temple a type?

CHAPTER 48 -- THAT HAGGAI'S PROPHECY, IN WHICH HE SAID THAT THE GLORY OF THE HOUSE OF GOD WOULD BE GREATER THAN THAT OF THE FIRST HAD BEEN, WAS REALLY FULFILLED, NOT IN THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE, BUT IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
"This house of God is more glorious than that first one which was constructed of wood and stone, metals and other precious things. Therefore the prophecy of Haggai was not fulfilled in the rebuilding of that temple. For it can never be shown to have had so much glory after it was rebuilt as it had in the time of Solomon; yea, rather, the glory of that house is shown to have been diminished, first by the ceasing of prophecy, and then by the nation itself suffering so great calamities, even to the final destruction made by the Romans, as the things above-mentioned prove. But this house which pertains to the new testament is just as much more glorious as the living stones, even believing, renewed men, of which it is constructed are better. But it was typified by the rebuilding of that temple for this reason, because the very renovation of that edifice typifies in the prophetic oracle another testament which is called the new. When, therefore, God said by the prophet just named, "And I will give peace in this place," He is to be understood who is typified by that typical place; for since by that rebuilt place is typified the Church which was to be built by Christ, nothing else can be accepted as the meaning of the saying, "I will give peace in this place," except I will give peace in the place which that place signifies." (City of God, Book XVIII, Ch. 48)

----
bla bla bla,

I gotto go,
Adam

[eschaton]

Hi Adam,

I'm impressed with your knowledge. That's almost more information than I can absorb in a single sitting. Nothing stands out to me that I need to disagree with. I guess that's good.

The thing that comes to me is a need for definitions.

What exactly is a preterist?

What is a futurist?

What is a preterist interpretation?

What is a futurist interpretation?

And what exactly is a historicist?

Do we need to start another thread?

I'm more accustomed to arguing with hyper(?)-preterist. I consider myself an amillennial futurist, although I'm not sure what that means anymore. I've been told by one amillennialsit that I wasn't really amillennial because I didn't embrace certain doctrines, although I can't remember what they were.

Anyway, thanks for the information, and I look forward to learning more about this.

Alan Fuller

[adam.naranjo]

Eschaton,

Thanks, I study hard.

Let me give you some definitions,

What is historicism?

Historicists believe that prophecy has is being progressively fulfilled slowly through history -- in a very unique way. They are premillennialism. The easiest way to describe them is that they believe that the book of revelation deals with the events of the last 2,000 years and into the future. They believe that the Pope and the Catholic Church was the Anti-Christ. This is why historicists get attached to the reformers, even though the reformers were by no means systematized historicists. Historicists try to claim that their view is historic in the church, but truthfully its a recent novelty. They have what I consider a very strange view of prophecy. They look back at the last 2,000 years and find things to which they can attach prophecies from Scriptures. Check out their outline of Revelation here: Panoramic view of revelation (http://www.potts.net.au/Stand/revelation.htm) (seventh day Adventists are historicists)

What exactly is a preterist?

Technically, it depends on how your using it. A preterist can be, one who hold to a past fulfillment of certain, many, or all prophetic passages. (note: Those who believe that all prophecy has been fulfilled (Hyper-Preterists) are heretics - check Dee Dee's signature). However one can speak of a preterist in the systematic sense and say that, a preterist believes that all prophecy has been fulfilled except the second physical coming of Christ, which will bring with it the one physical resurrection of the just and the unjust, the living and the dead, and final judgment. (The eternal state will follow). Preterists also disagree with futurists on the interpretation of many text. For example, the preterist holds that most of the Olivet discourse (Matt 24;luke 21; mark 13) did not speak of a physical coming of Christ, but a coming in judgment much like the comings of God in the Old Testament to judge nations. (Is 19:1, 2 sam 22:10, Is 31:4 Ex 34:5 and many more). This means that preterists view the 'great tribulation' as something fulfilled in the past. (specifically in 70 a.d. when the Romans armies destroyed Jerusalem, burned it down, slaughtered and untold number of Jews, and destroyed the temple).
Basically a preterist believes that the tabulation already took place and that we are in the kingdom period now, while Christ reigns from David’s throne in heaven. Does that help. I'm trying not to go to far in depth.

What is a futurist?

A futurist is the opposite of a preterist. One can use the "systematic" definition. Or a casual definition. In a sense, a futurist is someone who believes in future fulfillments of prophecy, this would include preterists -- to a certain degree we are futurists as well. However, this is a far to casual usage of the word. So for the most part a futurist is systematically defined as one who holds to a future tribulation (fulfillment of matt 24), a premillennialism return of Christ, a 'secret' rapture and resurrection of believers, and then the final judgment, general resurrection and eternal state. Now, within the futurist view there are MANY variations. Variations on the rapture: Pre-mill, mid-trib, partial-tib, post-trib, only Christians in the dispensation of 'mystery' or 'church', believers of both Old and New Testament periods.
Variations on the kingdom: Covenant Premill, progressive dispensational, Classical dispensational, acts 9 dispensational - acts 28 dispensational. (i'm not going to get into any of those, however, I used to be a classic, then acts9 then I toyed with acts 28, and then finally I decided to read some books by Preterist Postmillennial and Amillennialists -- Then I was "free at last")

Suffice to say that dispensationalism and futurism in general is in a big mess.

What is a preterist interpretation? What is a futurist interpretation?

What I mean by this is that there are certain passages that may be interpreted as being preterist ("Past Fulfillment"). For example, interpreters of Calvin's commentaries on Old Testament books have said that Calvin was a Preterist -- in that Calvin had a preterist view of some of the passages in those books. He believed that the Tribulation spoken of in Daniel was fulfilled in the past, A translator of Calvin's work notes: The “Time, Times, and Half a Time” of this chapter, Calvin refers to the persecution of the Christian Church under Nero, and similar tyrannical Emperors of Rome, and gives not the slightest countenance to any allusion in these words to a specified number of years. “Time and Times” are with him a long undefined period; and “Half a Time” is added in the spirit of the promise to shorten the time, for the Elects sake. Those modern Writers, who think the Year-Day theory essential to the full exposition of the Visions of Daniel, will be disappointed by the opinion of our Reformer. " [From Daniel: Translation Of The Text And Copious Indices, By Thomas Myers, M.A., Vicar Of Sheriff-Hutton, Yorkshire] The "year-day" theory he speaks of is the Anti-Papal view of many of the reformers. Granted Calvin was Anti-Papal he did NOT have a "historicist" (those who hold the systematized pope=anti-Christ theory) view of this passages. Rather, he had a preterist view. (ps, I don't agree with everything Calvin is saying here - but that’s another issue)

So, my point is that some Church Fathers have Preterist interpretations of some passages while having futurist interpretations of others. And for the most part the Church Fathers agree with systematized preterists like me. (that most of matt 24, and mark 13, and luke 21 and other passages referring to the tribulation to come on Israel, have been fulfilled.)
However, they (the ECF) were not "SYSTEMMATIZED". In other words they didn't have a STYSTEM of doctrine called "preterist". Systematic theology is something more recent in history. In the OLD days of the church (ECF) they didn't have need to systematize everything.

So, some church fathers were MORE futurist in their interpretations of various passages. But most were more preterist.

Is that good?

Amillennialist

Amillennialists can have a couple interpretations. Systematic amiller's simply believe that the millennium is the reign of Christ and the past saints in heaven, and that this is taking place now. They do not believe that the kingdom has any physical results on earth -- it's only a heavenly thing. They do not believe in a future physical 'millennial reign'. They believe that Christ will return physically to judge all men at the resurrection, and than bring in the eternal state. They can have two different interpretations of Revelation, and the olivet discourse. 1.) Preterist [keep in mind that preterism is not a millennial view itself] 2). Idealist. [idealist means that one looks at prophecy as being simply a broad statement about the future in general, not literally or specifically. In other words they see revelation as a battle between good and evil through out the rest of history. Simply that. )

in the past, some amillennialists have been Idealists -- BUT, most of them have had preterist interpretations of some prophecy as well. For example, Augustine had a preterist view of the tribulation in the Olivet discourse, but had an idealist view of anti-Christ. (at least that’s what I see from him)

Amillennialists hold that the "millennial reign" is going on now and that it will continue until Christ. Postmillennialists AGREE with amillennialists at this point. HOWEVER, we disagree with amillennialists that the reign is only in heaven, or in the church. WE believe that Christ is reigning over the whole earth until all of his enemies are subdued and the world is almost completely Christian. This is the fulfillment of the great commission. Amillennialists believe that the reign of Christ exists right along side the reign of evil, and both will exist until Christ’s return with no side 'winning out'. Postmiller's believe that Christ WILL win out, and that through the church he will take dominion and make His enemies the footstool of his feet. This is the Glory of the 'kingdom' prophecies in the old testament being fulfilled. Not with a literal geo-political kingdom in Israel, but with and through the Church, who is the true Israel.

Amillennialists and postmillennialists agree that Christ will return after the millennium.

That's all there is to it. I hope that helps you figure out if your an Amiller.

--------
Adam

[Bill the Cat]

Adam,

While I enjoy your scholarship, I think you should have said that these definitions were from a preterist perspective, although reading it, it is quite clear which view you are biased toward.

[eschaton]

Hi Adam,

Thank you for straightening me out on that.

As for my own view, I don't believe the scriptures teach a literal return of Christ to this earth to reign a literal 1000 years before the final judgment. That's why I consider myself an amillennialist. His kingdom is present in the hearts of believers.

You said:
>>They have what I consider a very strange view of prophecy. They look back at the last 2,000 years and find things to which they can attach prophecies from Scriptures. <<

How is the preterist view of prophecy much different? It covers a smaller span of history perhaps, but not all agree on who the beast, antichrist, or man of sin was. As a matter of fact, I don't think there's any history to back the preterist's claims. Not in Josephus anyway. The preterist is reduced to making what I consider inconsistent interpretations of scripture to support his assertions.

If you want to counter my statements should we make another thread?

Thanks again for your information.

Alan

[kendemyer]

Re: TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST

I have read there is controversy whether Melito of Sardis wrote this. I do not know the exact merit of each side. If anyone want to do further research I would appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Tim C.]

Dee Dee, you should include the book and chapter citations on all of your quotes. People will want to backcheck the quotes and also search through the surrounding context.

-Tim

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am planning on going through some of those one by one -strange I didn't include that sorry

Now you must tell me why you are a fork.

[Faramir]

:offtopic:

:digup:


Adam,

While I enjoy your scholarship, I think you should have said that these definitions were from a preterist perspective, although reading it, it is quite clear which view you are biased toward.I was excited to see my favorite furturist whipping boy* Bill the Cat (:btc: :whip: :faramir:) posting in eschatology, only to realize that his post was over a year ago :bawl:

%*#@$ dug up old post :argh:
















* For those of you who are somewhat new to TWweb, "futurist whipping boy" is a term of great respect. Despite our escatalogical differences, we have a lot in common and great respect for each other (at least I think he respects me :shrug: )

[Tim C.]

I am planning on going through some of those one by one -strange I didn't include that sorryIf you would repost that list with the book and chapter citations, that would be great. An additional suggestion (which comes out of personal experience), it would be good to follow the chapter and verse breakdowns found at ccel.org online texts, rather than, for example, a "Early Christian Writings, p.100" for example. See, references to page numbers in a particular printed addition will not be helpful to many lurkers here.


Now you must tell me why you are a fork.Ah the fork raised your curiosity, eh?

-Tim

[Dee Dee Warren]

If you would repost that list with the book and chapter citations, that would be great. An additional suggestion (which comes out of personal experience), it would be good to follow the chapter and verse breakdowns found at ccel.org online texts, rather than, for example, a "Early Christian Writings, p.100" for example. See, references to page numbers in a particular printed addition will not be helpful to many lurkers here.
I don't know if I still have them.... frankly I don't remember that post - I will try to dig up my file because some of them have cites and the others don't on there.



Ah the fork raised your curiosity, eh?


Yes. :whack:

[kendemyer]

TO: Faramir

I am hoping some Melito/Treatise research will be done. Melito was said to have been a premillennial futurist by Jerome and another person who I cannot recall. Anyways there is some question perhaps if Melito actually authored what if memory serves is called "Treatise on Revelation". Also, if memory serves (and I think it does) Melito was very near Smyrna is physical locale and it is easy to see why some scholars (at least one I think it was Lightfoot) believe he met Polycarp who was the Apostle John's disciple.

Farmir, this is one of my Lazarus threads. It was never destined to stay dead. Melito/Treatise is begging to be researched. Plus we have TimC now who likes to talk about the ECFs.

On April fools day I will see if I can pull up a few Bill the Cat threads just to get you excited and then pull the rug out from under you again!

Sincerely,

Ken

[Etcetera]

Now you must tell me why you are a fork.

It may mean: Stick a fork in me; I'm done.

:wink:

Etcetera.