Ammillennialism and Pretribulationism both fly against the Early Church

[Jerryhuerta]

It's a useless sign because it doesn't point to anything.
It's like putting a roadsign somewhere out in the middle of the desert with a city's name on it, without a distance, or even a direction just "hey it exists out there somewhere"

When God did give indications of something still a ways off, He gave time, like Daniel's 70 weeks.
when there's something an unknown distance away, as in Jesus didn't know when the day or hour would be, only the events would happen in quick succession, He gave signs to watch for, rather than a timeline, and those signs were to be close to the event so that people could watch for them and know what was coming next.
It was "when you see this, know it's close, even at the door"
not "when you see this, generations of people will live and die and something will happen someday"

It points to the times we live in and exposes the harlot Babylon, the love of simplicity and lack of knowledge,

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (Hosea 4:6)​

Protestantism rejected the law when they secularized society, which enriched the merchants. I leave simplicity and lack of knowledge to its reward. I'm done correcting you.

 

[Jamdoc]

It points to the times we live in and exposes the harlot Babylon, the love of simplicity and lack of knowledge,

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (Hosea 4:6)​

Protestantism rejected the law when they secularized society, which enriched the merchants. I leave simplicity and lack of knowledge to its reward. I'm done correcting you.

That's as useful as saying people sinning is a sign of the end.

and considering how often you attack "protestants" should I be attacking Catholicism? Cause I could, in detail, even in regards to this topic.
Catholics went full on stupid and embraced Greek Dualistic Philosophy and poisoned the Church for centuries and centuries.
They abandoned the Early Church and Apostolic Teachings in favor of some Stoic Philosopher "converts"

 

[TheCabinetGuy]

Or.. maybe the person who was closer to John who wrote Revelation, has a better idea of how it's calculated than you, and you're wrong.

Let's examine what Irenaeus had to say:

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six...

So he confirms that 616 was a scribal error, and the real number is 666. And then a warning:

For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.

Just because a false prophet or tyrant's name or title doesn't calculate to 666 (or 616) doesn't mean we can relax...

But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.

Already fulfilled. Vicarius Filii Dei.

Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, “We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan..."

The final Antichrist or False Prophet will most likely be a Jew, and most likely from the tribe of Dan.

It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number...

We should wait until the fulfillment of the prophecy- which was when Rome divides into ten. This has already happened...

And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant.

Seems like he is hinting that its a title given to this person rather than the name given to him at birth. He then suggests the word "Titan."

Inasmuch, then, as this name “Titan” has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called “Titan.”

Skipping down...

For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

This statement alone disproves Preterism (the idea that Revelation was written before the diaspora in 70AD and only applicable in the 1st century).

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...

Indicating that the temple at Jerusalem will be rebuilt, and desecrated by the Antichrist. It's not just the Jews that want the temple rebuilt. I'll give you a hint: IHS

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, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day...

He confirms that the millenial reign is to be taken literally as a 1000 year sabbath of peace on the earth.

Nowhere in here does it contradict what I teach on this subject. If anything, it confirms some aspects of it. But Irenaeus was only given a few pieces of the puzzle. When I gathered all the pieces togethor, the picture became very clear as what is going to happen in the near future...

 

[Jamdoc]

Let's examine what Irenaeus had to say:


So he confirms that 616 was a scribal error, and the real number is 666. And then a warning:


Just because a false prophet or tyrant's name or title doesn't calculate to 666 (or 616) doesn't mean we can relax...


Already fulfilled. Vicarius Filii Dei.


The final Antichrist or False Prophet will most likely be a Jew, and most likely from the tribe of Dan.


We should wait until the fulfillment of the prophecy- which was when Rome divides into ten. This has already happened...


Seems like he is hinting that its a title given to this person rather than the name given to him at birth. He then suggests the word "Titan."


Skipping down...


This statement alone disproves Preterism (the idea that Revelation was written before the diaspora in 70AD and only applicable in the 1st century).


Indicating that the temple at Jerusalem will be rebuilt, and desecrated by the Antichrist. It's not just the Jews that want the temple rebuilt. I'll give you a hint: IHS


He confirms that the millenial reign is to be taken literally as a 1000 year sabbath of peace on the earth.

Nowhere in here does it contradict what I teach on this subject. If anything, it confirms some aspects of it. But Irenaeus was only given a few pieces of the puzzle. When I gathered all the pieces togethor, the picture became very clear as what is going to happen in the near future...

I'm going to disagree with "has already been fulfilled" for the same reason I dispute partial preterism and historicism in general: Jesus gave signs that would all be seen within 1 generation, 1 lifetime. If they were hundreds or thousands of years ago they are non functional as signs. They don't do anything, but if they're close to His return then those signs actually do something, they wake people up who were asleep an get people anticipating what comes next based on what scripture says.

Hundreds of years? There's no urgency, "it won't even happen in our lifetime anyway"
like to give an extreme example.. scientists will tell you that the sun will one day consume its hydrogen fuel and begin fusing Helium, and become a red giant, in the process completely engulfing the inner planets and utterly destroying them.
Do we worry about the signs that the sun will do that now?

No
because it's billions of years away, we'd be long dead and it is irrelevant
they claim climate change will ruin the planet in 100 years or even shorter, but a lot of people simply don't care because it's beyond their expected lifespan anyway.

Same thing happens with prophecy, if you tell someone the end of the world is soon for 2000 years.. it puts everyone to sleep, but Jesus said there would be signs that one they started, they'd see the end of all prophecy within that lifespan.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Actually no. Justin Martyr wrote about chiliasm in Dialog With Trypho saying:

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and believe that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."

He supports chiliasm but points out that there are many who think otherwise. Not that it was some minority view or one held by only a few, but many. And that was long before either Origen or Augustine. That shows how far back the dispute goes. And the dispute was finally settled by the Church when chiliasm was condemned. The Eastern Church more or less ignores it as irrelevant while the Western Church labeled it an unsafe doctrine to teach.

Yep. When people are unable to support their doctrine with scripture they resort to making false claims that no one in the early church believed in Amillennialism and nonsense like that. It's sad.

 

[Timtofly]

the Sabbath is Saturday, always. It is given as a law that the 7th day is the Sabbath.
so the preparation day before the Sabbath, is Friday.
that is why they have "good Friday" though I suppose they're off, in that the crucifixion was Thursday but His burial was Friday evening (what we'd consider Thursday Evening)

But I suppose all of this is good exercise in showing that the Jews reckoned time differently than we do.
they start days at sundown rather than midnight, and count the day they're on rather than count the day after. When we say after 3 days we mean after 72 hours. When they say after 3 days, they mean after 48 hours and during that next 24 hours, just after the 3rd day has started rather than after it has finished.

and for instance, Hosea 6

raising up in the 3rd day.

The Passover was a Sabbath.

"And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you." Exodus 12:14

Sometimes the 15th was on a Saturday. Sometimes the 15th was on a Tuesday. Sometimes the 15th was on a Thursday.

Those days were high Sabbaths and no work could be done on them. Sabbath does not mean Saturday nor the 7th day. Sabbath means rest and no work is supposed to be done on that day.

In 33AD the Passover was on a Saturday. In 30AD the Passover was on a Thursday. Jesus was placed in the tomb on Wednesday before 6pm to be in the tomb on Passover, Thursday. The tomb was not sealed until late Friday, because the Sanhedrin rembered that he would rise the 3rd day. They did not petition Pilate on Saturday afternoon. They did that on Friday after Jesus was already in the tomb for 2 days.

We can rule out the other years because Jesus was not in the tomb on a Tuesday. That would be too many days between Passover and Sunday morning, the first day of the week, when the tomb was opened by an angel, but already empty.

Jesus was the Passover Lamb signified by being crucified on the 14th in preparation for the Passover, the 15th, a Sabbath day. Jesus had the last supper on the evening of the 13th and went out and prayed all night until early morning in preparation for the Cross later that day.

The point is which day best allows for 3 days and 3 nights, not 1 day with a partial hour in two other days calling that 3 days. That may be 3 partial days, but certainly not 3 days and 3 nights, which is plainly expressed to avoid the confusion. No one even knows if Jesus was in the tomb at all on Sunday that started 6pm Saturday. You cannot even count Sunday. All you have in 33AD is 2 days, an hour or two tops on Friday, and Saturday. Jesus had already finished the time by 6pm Saturday evening. The problem is that the angel did not unseal the tomb until the morning light. No Romans checked on Saturday to make sure a body was still there, that we are told about.

The Cross was not on a Thursday morning, nor Friday. The Lamb was never prepared nor killed on the Passover. The Lamb was killed on the 14th in a preparation for the Passover, the Sabbath 15th. The first Passover they left Egypt in a hurry. But every Passover (the 15th) after that was a memorial day, and a Sabbath day. Jesus would not have been killed on the Passover, a Thursday in 30AD. Nor on Saturday in 33AD. In 33AD the 14th was a Friday, so the 13th a Thursday would not work at all. No lamb was ever killed a day early, but always on the day of preparation, the 14th.

That first 14th, they were eating the cooked Lamb, while the death angel was passing over and killing all the firstborn Egyptians. That would have been during the evening of the 15th. They cooked during the day, and started eating in the evening of the 15th to be ready for the trip at morning light, when they fled Egypt. What they did not eat, they burned the rest.

One cannot just take a few verses in the Gospels, but one must understand the whole process of the Passover when they left Egypt, from the OT. Being redeemed is likened unto leaving Egypt and the world behind, because of the Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ.

 

[Jamdoc]

The Passover was a Sabbath.

"And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you." Exodus 12:14

Sometimes the 15th was on a Saturday. Sometimes the 15th was on a Tuesday. Sometimes the 15th was on a Thursday.

Those days were high Sabbaths and no work could be done on them. Sabbath does not mean Saturday nor the 7th day. Sabbath means rest and no work is supposed to be done on that day.

In 33AD the Passover was on a Saturday. In 30AD the Passover was on a Thursday. Jesus was placed in the tomb on Wednesday before 6pm to be in the tomb on Passover, Thursday. The tomb was not sealed until late Friday, because the Sanhedrin rembered that he would rise the 3rd day. They did not petition Pilate on Saturday afternoon. They did that on Friday after Jesus was already in the tomb for 2 days.

We can rule out the other years because Jesus was not in the tomb on a Tuesday. That would be too many days between Passover and Sunday morning, the first day of the week, when the tomb was opened by an angel, but already empty.

Jesus was the Passover Lamb signified by being crucified on the 14th in preparation for the Passover, the 15th, a Sabbath day. Jesus had the last supper on the evening of the 13th and went out and prayed all night until early morning in preparation for the Cross later that day.

The point is which day best allows for 3 days and 3 nights, not 1 day with a partial hour in two other days calling that 3 days. That may be 3 partial days, but certainly not 3 days and 3 nights, which is plainly expressed to avoid the confusion. No one even knows if Jesus was in the tomb at all on Sunday that started 6pm Saturday. You cannot even count Sunday. All you have in 33AD is 2 days, an hour or two tops on Friday, and Saturday. Jesus had already finished the time by 6pm Saturday evening. The problem is that the angel did not unseal the tomb until the morning light. No Romans checked on Saturday to make sure a body was still there, that we are told about.

The Cross was not on a Thursday morning, nor Friday. The Lamb was never prepared nor killed on the Passover. The Lamb was killed on the 14th in a preparation for the Passover, the Sabbath 15th. The first Passover they left Egypt in a hurry. But every Passover (the 15th) after that was a memorial day, and a Sabbath day. Jesus would not have been killed on the Passover, a Thursday in 30AD. Nor on Saturday in 33AD. In 33AD the 14th was a Friday, so the 13th a Thursday would not work at all. No lamb was ever killed a day early, but always on the day of preparation, the 14th.

That first 14th, they were eating the cooked Lamb, while the death angel was passing over and killing all the firstborn Egyptians. That would have been during the evening of the 15th. They cooked during the day, and started eating in the evening of the 15th to be ready for the trip at morning light, when they fled Egypt. What they did not eat, they burned the rest.

One cannot just take a few verses in the Gospels, but one must understand the whole process of the Passover when they left Egypt, from the OT. Being redeemed is likened unto leaving Egypt and the world behind, because of the Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ.

They don't refer to the Passover as the Sabbath. They never do.

 

[Zao is life]

Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John, who wrote Revelation wrote in "Against Heresies" a premillennial view of eschatology, that had the Church put to flight by Antichrist (so incompatible with Pre-tribulationism), and took prophecy literally (including the number 666, which while it was a symbol for the accumulation of sin all put on one man, it was still literally a number that could be calculated from his name using GREEK Gematria not Hebrew or English or any other language, but Greek), and was incompatible with the heresies later brought by Origen and Augustine, theological poison introduced in the 4th and 5th centuries that poisoned Christian Theology for over 1000 years (and still poison it today)

Views compatible with the early church are Post-tribulation Premillennialism (Historic Premillennialism as opposed to Dispensational), and possibly Pre-wrath Premillennialism (as the main thing said to be faced by the church is the reign of Antichrist not supernatural judgements from God)
Pre-wrath is a newer teaching on it that sees a more distinct difference between Antichrist's reign/Tribulation vs God's Wrath (taking literally the bowls and trumpets as God's wrath as opposed to most post-trib seeing the bowls and trumpets as "symbols" and just "tribulation" rather than the wrath of God), so it's still compatible as both schools believe it's future, premillennial, and the Church would face Antichrist before being delivered. Pre-wrath's main problem is a hangover from a Pre-tribulation view that I believe most start in before reading the bible and seeing a more post-trib view in the bible but they hang onto the '2 second comings' from pre-trib too hard (I only believe in 1 second coming but it's earlier)

Views incompatible with the Early Church are Amillennialism, Post-Millennialism, Full and Partial Preterism (as if even part had been fulfilled, the Early Church Fathers would have wrote about how those parts were fulfilled), and Pre-tribulation Dispensational Premillennialism.

Historicism is hard to say, as historical events could have happened in our past but the Early Church's future though most Historicism relies on allegorical interpretation more in line with Amillennialism which was incompatible with the Early Church (that is 1st and second centuries, pre Augustinian Platonic Cancer infection) as its base.

My own understanding of a Post-Tribulationist, literal thousand years following the return of Christ and Day of the beast's judgment did not come to me through studyng what the ECF wrote, nor by studying Bible commentaries, nor via any institution's theological or eschatological foundation,

but only through my own studies of the Bible alone - and not with relying on my own understanding, but acknowledging my (especially then) new believer's lack of understanding, and praying to God, asking Him to give me wisdom (acknowledging my lack, because all wisdom is of God), and for insight and understanding of His Word.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths." -- Proverbs 3:5-6.

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and with no reproach, and it shall be given to him. But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed. For do not let that man think that he shall receive anything from the Lord;" -- James 1:5-7.

"And whatever you may ask in My name, that I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. " -- John 14:13-14.

As a result I've seen many times how Post-Millennialists, and (big culprits in this) Amillenniaists, Preterists and Partial Preterists, believing in their theology and in the truth of their theology and eschatology equally as much as they believe in Christ and in scripture, always wind up defending their eschatology and theology as though it's scripture, without even realizing that they are doing so, believing in their minds that every interpretation of scripture must comply with the theology, or it cannot be true.​

 

[Timtofly]

They don't refer to the Passover as the Sabbath. They never do.

Who is "they"? God?

 

[Jamdoc]

Who is "they"? God?

Scripture and the Israelites.
There's a thread about this particular subject here Two Sabbaths in Passion week? No!
the main idea being that they'd denote a special Sabbath if another Holy day happened to fall on a Sabbath, but they didn't declare these days Sabbaths in themselves if they were on any other day of the week but Saturday.

Having no work be done doesn't mean it's called a Sabbath as far as I know but Passover can fall on a Sabbath, but it is not called a Sabbath itself

 

[JSRG]

They don't refer to the Passover as the Sabbath. They never do.

Indeed. This is the big issue I have with the claim of those who say the Passover counted as a Sabbath. They simply assert it was a Sabbath, but never point to any instance of it being referred to as such. It's never clearly referred to as such in the Old Testament. Yes, it is a day they're ordered to rest on, but the Old Testament never refers to it as a Sabbath. This is most notable in Leviticus 23, where even though several other holidays are referred to as Sabbaths (see Leviticus 23:23 and Leviticus 23:32), the Passover is not in Leviticus 23:8.

Now, even if the Old Testament never uses the word Sabbath to refer to Passover, it could be that it came be known as such in popular usage due to the prohibition on work. However, I've yet to see anyone who claims it was regarded as a Sabbath point to any evidence this was the case; no writings from around the New Testament period (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, or various apocryphal writings) are ever provided of it being referred to as a Sabbath.

 

[Jamdoc]

Indeed. This is the big issue I have with the claim of those who say the Passover counted as a Sabbath. They simply assert it was a Sabbath, but never point to any instance of it being referred to as such. It's never clearly referred to as such in the Old Testament. Yes, it is a day they're ordered to rest on, but the Old Testament never refers to it as a Sabbath. This is most notable in Leviticus 23, where even though several other holidays are referred to as Sabbaths (see Leviticus 23:23 and Leviticus 23:32), the Passover is not in Leviticus 23:8.

Now, even if the Old Testament never uses the word Sabbath to refer to Passover, it could be that it came be known as such in popular usage due to the prohibition on work. However, I've yet to see anyone who claims it was regarded as a Sabbath point to any evidence this was the case; no writings from around the New Testament period (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, or various apocryphal writings) are ever provided of it being referred to as a Sabbath.

Correct, so it's clear to me, that Jesus was crucified during the day on Thursday, buried when it became Friday evening, (Day 1), Friday evening to Saturday Evening (Day 2), and rose in the third day (Sunday) not at the conclusion of the 3rd day.
It just shows they reckon time differently, counting the day they are on, and similarly, the 70 weeks of Daniel, Jesus was crucified in the 69th week, not after the conclusion of the 69th weeks.

The "after" is a cultural difference, for them it's "after" it begins, not after it ends.