Difference between amillennialism & preterism

5thKingdom

Newbie
Mar 23, 2015
3,698
219
✟35,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They were referred to as souls before they "lived again," as is explicitly stated in verse 5.


Exactly.... the SOUL of unsaved man is DEAD until it is "resurrected" from (spiritual) death
when they are "born again".... during the "first resurrection"... after which they are no longer
subject to the "second death".

Again... we are no longer subject to the second death when we are "born again"
or "translated" from spiritual DEATH to spiritual LIFE.

With all due respect, have you never heard this doctrine before?
This is the TRADITIONAL understanding of early Christians (both Catholic and Protestant).
It is called the "Amillennial" doctrine as the Saints "lived and reigned with Christ" during
the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven".... before Satan is "loosened" for his "Little Season".

With all due respect.... Do you think this is some NEW teaching?
 
Upvote 0

5thKingdom

Newbie
Mar 23, 2015
3,698
219
✟35,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Amillennism was most certainly not the teaching of ANY Christian who wrote before the end of the church's second century. Justyn clearly stated that there were some who did not believe in a literal thousand years, but during the first two centuries of the church, not even one of these people wrote anything that has survived to the present day. So even if this may be the typical interpretation of amillenists, it was most certainly NOT the original teaching of the church.
.


When you say it was not the "original teaching of the church"....
do you understand the EARLY "church" expected the Lord's Return during their lifetime?

So your argument that "there were some who did not believe in a literal thousand years"
does not agree with HISTORY (aka "reality") and it does not agree with what
the Bible says... notice the BIBLE [2Th2] was written long before Justyn
(as if what Justyn said has any relevance).

2Th 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The REVEALING of the "Man of Sin" could not happen until AFTER the Holy Spirit was removed
and AFTER Satan was "loosened" from the Bottomless Pit.... and given "dominion" over the
Kingdom during his "Little Season".


2Th 2:6-8 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let,
until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed,

whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall
destroy with the brightness of his coming:



.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
.


When you say it was not the "original teaching of the church"....
do you understand the EARLY "church" expected the Lord's Return during their lifetime?

So your argument that "there were some who did not believe in a literal thousand years"
does not agree with HISTORY (aka "reality") and it does not agree with what
the Bible says... notice the BIBLE [2Th2] was written long before Justyn
(as if what Justyn said has any relevance).

2Th 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The REVEALING of the "Man of Sin" could not happen until AFTER the Holy Spirit was removed
and AFTER Satan was "loosened" from the Bottomless Pit.... and given "dominion" over the
Kingdom during his "Little Season".


2Th 2:6-8 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let,
until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed,

whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall
destroy with the brightness of his coming:



.
I was answering the false claim that Amillinism was the doctrine of the early church. It was not, and that is proven fact.
 
Upvote 0

5thKingdom

Newbie
Mar 23, 2015
3,698
219
✟35,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I was answering the false claim that Amillinism was the doctrine of the early church. It was not, and that is proven fact.


When you say "that is a proven fact"....
what do you do with the SCRIPTURES I quoted above [2Th2]
and the HISTORICAL FACT that early Christians expected the Lord's Return
during their lifetime?

Is 2Th2 and HISTORY (reality) somehow NEGATED
by your declaration that your position "is a proven fact"?


According to the BIBLE and HISTORY early Christians did NOT believe
in a literal understanding of the 1000 years and early Christians understood
the "first resurrection" was when someone was "born again" and they were then
"translated" from death to life, as they are "raised" with Christ in order to
"live and reign with Christ for one thousand years"

BTW.... you still have not addressed WHEN the "first resurrection" occurs.
If it is NOT the "regeneration" of the SOUL when we are "born again".....
if it is a physical resurrection.... why is it not Matthew 27?


Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies
of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many



Clearly the "first resurrection" has to be either (a) a spiritual resurrection or
(b) a physical resurrection. If you are claiming it is a PHYSICAL resurrection
then what do you do with Matthew 27:51-53.... which contradicts you?


,
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
When you say "that is a proven fact"....
what do you do with the SCRIPTURES I quoted above [2Th2]
and the HISTORICAL FACT that early Christians expected the Lord's Return
during their lifetime?

Is 2Th2 and HISTORY (reality) somehow NEGATED
by your declaration that your position "is a proven fact"?


According to the BIBLE and HISTORY early Christians did NOT believe
in a literal understanding of the 1000 years and early Christians understood
the "first resurrection" was when someone was "born again" and they were then
"translated" from death to life, as they are "raised" with Christ in order to
"live and reign with Christ for one thousand years"

BTW.... you still have not addressed WHEN the "first resurrection" occurs.
If it is NOT the "regeneration" of the SOUL when we are "born again".....
if it is a physical resurrection.... why is it not Matthew 27?


Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies
of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many



Clearly the "first resurrection" has to be either (a) a spiritual resurrection or
(b) a physical resurrection. If you are claiming it is a PHYSICAL resurrection
then what do you do with Matthew 27:51-53.... which contradicts you?


,
The first resurrection in Revelation 20 is clearly differentiated from "the rest of the dead," whose judgment begins in verse 11.

You have not produced historical evidence that the early Christians expected the Lord's return during their lifetime.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was answering the false claim that Amillinism was the doctrine of the early church. It was not, and that is proven fact.
Papias was the earliest premil. From Wikipedia:
“The work of Papias is dated by most modern scholars to about 95–120.”

From “The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial”
By Martin R. Bachicha
“The following quote by the early church historian Eusebius from his classic work The History of the Church clearly demonstrates the amillennial, consummationist outlook held by the early church. Speaking of the grandsons of Jude, he writes: "the grandsons of Jude.... When asked [by the Emperor Domitian] (reign 81-96 AD) about Christ and his kingdom--what it was like, and where it would appear--they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead ...." [The History of the Church by Eusebius] from Charles Ludwig, Ludwig’s Handbook of New Testament Rulers and Cities.“

Both amil and premil were present and coexisted amicably in the early post-apostolic church. It is inconclusive as to whether one or the other was most prevalent in the earliest years. By the end of the early post-apostolic period (first 300 years), however, amil had become predominant. Contrary to frequently appearing opinion, this predominance predated Augustine.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Papias was the earliest premil. From Wikipedia:
“The work of Papias is dated by most modern scholars to about 95–120.”

From “The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial”
By Martin R. Bachicha
“The following quote by the early church historian Eusebius from his classic work The History of the Church clearly demonstrates the amillennial, consummationist outlook held by the early church. Speaking of the grandsons of Jude, he writes: "the grandsons of Jude.... When asked [by the Emperor Domitian] (reign 81-96 AD) about Christ and his kingdom--what it was like, and where it would appear--they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead ...." [The History of the Church by Eusebius] from Charles Ludwig, Ludwig’s Handbook of New Testament Rulers and Cities.“

Both amil and premil were present and coexisted amicably in the early post-apostolic church. It is inconclusive as to whether one or the other was most prevalent in the earliest years. By the end of the early post-apostolic period (first 300 years), however, amil had become predominant. Contrary to frequently appearing opinion, this predominance predated Augustine.

Papias was not just the earliest premil, he was the very earliest Christian writer on Bible prophecy that we know about, although the medieval monks did not see fit to preserve what he wrote. Premil was also the clear position of the earliest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy that has survived to the present day, the last twelve chapters of the famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," and of thevery oldest surviving Christoan commentary on scripture, which was a commentary on the book of Daniel by Hippolytus.

The statement by the grandsons of Jude, as you have given above,was NOT amilleial, but said that the kingdom of Christ "would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead." This is premil, NOT amil.

The same Eusebius that recorded this statement also complained about how many of the early Church Fathers, as he called them had followed the (as he supposed) erroneous lead of Papias. (“The Church History,” by Eusebius, book 3, chapter 39.)

Among these "many" early Christian writers who clearly taught premil were Papias, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius, Apollinaris, and Nepos. But amil was not taught by even one writer from the first two centuries of the church whose works are known about today.

And as late as the fifth century Jerome called futurism "the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

My comments on this history are not based on a quick check of wikipedia articles, which may or may not be correct, but on literally years of detailed study of the actual original sources.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Papias was not just the earliest premil, he was the very earliest Christian writer on Bible prophecy that we know about, although the medieval monks did not see fit to preserve what he wrote. Premil was also the clear position of the earliest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy that has survived to the present day, the last twelve chapters of the famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," and of thevery oldest surviving Christoan commentary on scripture, which was a commentary on the book of Daniel by Hippolytus.

The statement by the grandsons of Jude, as you have given above,was NOT amilleial, but said that the kingdom of Christ "would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead." This is premil, NOT amil.

The same Eusebius that recorded this statement also complained about how many of the early Church Fathers, as he called them had followed the (as he supposed) erroneous lead of Papias. (“The Church History,” by Eusebius, book 3, chapter 39.)

Among these "many" early Christian writers who clearly taught premil were Papias, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius, Apollinaris, and Nepos. But amil was not taught by even one writer from the first two centuries of the church whose works are known about today.

And as late as the fifth century Jerome called futurism "the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

My comments on this history are not based on a quick check of wikipedia articles, which may or may not be correct, but on literally years of detailed study of the actual original sources.

Dare it be said that there might be Wikipedians as erudite as yourself? Sorry, almost forgot, there's no oracle that can equal a dispensational oracle.

Have you ever contributed to Wikipedia?

You conveniently neglected to cite Justin Martyr's acknowledgement:

"I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], 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."

So there were many amils. They just didn't happen to be writers. Perhaps in their acceptance of the doctrine as scriptural truth, they didn't believe that it needed to be vigorously defended.

Regardless, Martyr's tone reflects the amicable relationship between premils and amils to which I alluded earlier, a marked contrast with the acrimonious and adversarial attitude with which dispensationalism regards its dissenters today. This is unsurprising; Martyr and those like him were classic/historic premils, whose only significant difference with amils was their conviction as to whether the millennium was literal or spiritual. As Wikipedia (whether or not you choose to recognize it) observes:

“Premillennialism appeared in the available writings of the early church but it was evident that both views existed side by side. The premillennial beliefs of the early church fathers, however, are quite different from the dominant form of modern-day premillennialism, namely dispensational premillennialism.”

Given the Roman Empire's supremacy across the world of his day, one can understand Jerome's presumption that it would persist to the end of the world. Jerome died in 420 AD, but had he lived only a relatively few years longer, he would have seen the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire by 476 AD. In reference to his Daniel commentary, he would have seen its fulfillments in the ten horns/kingdoms (Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons), the little horn/kingdom (Papal Rome), and the three horns/kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths). Thus his futurism was of comparatively short duration, and its scriptural fulfillments readily confirmed today in historical hindsight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Dare it be said that there might be Wikipedians as erudite as yourself? Sorry, almost forgot, there's no oracle that can equal a dispensational oracle.

Have you ever contributed to Wikipedia?

You conveniently neglected to cite Justin Martyr's acknowledgement:

"I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], 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."

So there were many amils. They just didn't happen to be writers. Perhaps in their acceptance of the doctrine as scriptural truth, they didn't believe that it needed to be vigorously defended.

Regardless, Martyr's tone reflects the amicable relationship between premils and amils to which I alluded earlier, a marked contrast with the acrimonious and adversarial attitude with which dispensationalism regards its dissenters today. This is unsurprising; Martyr and those like him were classic/historic premils, whose only significant difference with amils was their conviction as to whether the millennium was literal or spiritual. As Wikipedia (whether or not you choose to recognize it) observes:

“Premillennialism appeared in the available writings of the early church but it was evident that both views existed side by side. The premillennial beliefs of the early church fathers, however, are quite different from the dominant form of modern-day premillennialism, namely dispensational premillennialism.”

Given the Roman Empire's supremacy across the world of his day, one can understand Jerome's presumption that it would persist to the end of the world. Jerome died in 420 AD, but had he lived only a relatively few years longer, he would have seen the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire by 476 AD. In reference to his Daniel commentary, he would have seen its fulfillments in the ten horns/kingdoms (Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons), the little horn/kingdom (Papal Rome), and the three horns/kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths). Thus his futurism was of comparatively short duration, and its scriptural fulfillments readily confirmed today in historical hindsight.

Yes, I have contribured to wikipedia, and my comments almost immediately disappeared. Wikipedia is indeed a good source of general information. But it is not a good source of informatin about hotly disputed topics.

I did not, conveniently or otherwise, ignore Justyn's comment about amils in the early church but was speaking of it when I clearly stated that there were amils in the early church. But I followed that with an indisputable statement that there was not even one amil writer from the first two centuries of the church, whose works have survived to the present day.Nor was there an amil writer whom like Papias, we know about, but whose works were not preserved.

And I have written at length to prove that the premillennism of the early Church was far mire dispensational that most people admit.

Irenaeus, for instance, spoke of two past dispensations, as well as the present one, and "possible future ones." He used the word dispensation, in the singular or plural, more than forty times, and said that a lack of knowledge of the dispensations kept people from understanding Bible prophecy. He clearly referred to the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy as being yet to come, and he taught a rapture before the great tribulation.

And it is absolutely necessary to completely ignore most of the details of the prophecies involved to even pretend that they have already been fulfilled.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Irenaeus, for instance, spoke of two past dispensations, as well as the present one, and "possible future ones." He used the word dispensation, in the singular or plural, more than forty times, and said that a lack of knowledge of the dispensations kept people from understanding Bible prophecy. He clearly referred to the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy as being yet to come, and he taught a rapture before the great tribulation.

Dr. Thomas Ice, Pre-Trib Research Center:

Irenaeus


Some have thought that Irenaeus (c. 180) could be a pre-trib rapture statement since he actually speaks of the rapture: �the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this [the tribulation],� as noted below:

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, �There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.� For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.[7]

However, the very next statement speaks of believers in the tribulation. When taken within the context of all of Irenaeus� writings on these subjects, it appears that he was not teaching pretribulationism.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Irenaeus, for instance, spoke of two past dispensations, as well as the present one, and "possible future ones." He used the word dispensation, in the singular or plural, more than forty times, and said that a lack of knowledge of the dispensations kept people from understanding Bible prophecy. He clearly referred to the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy as being yet to come, and he taught a rapture before the great tribulation.

The Epistle of Barnabas pre-dates Irenaeus, with an undecapitated 70th week:

Barnabas 16:6
But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in
the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it
is written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being
accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the
name of the Lord.


Barnabas 16:7
I find then that there is a temple, How then shall it be built in
the name of the Lord? Understand ye. Before we believed on God, the
abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by
hands; for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because
we did whatsoever was contrary to God.

Barnabas 16:8
But it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Give heed then that
the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously.

Barnabas 16:9
How? Understand ye. By receiving the remission of our sins and
hoping on the Name we became new, created afresh from the beginning.
Wherefore God dwelleth truly in our habitation within us. How? The
word of his faith, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of the
ordinances, the commandments of the teaching, He Himself prophesying
in us, He Himself dwelling in us, opening for us who had been in
bondage unto death the door of the temple, which is the mouth, and
giving us repentance leadeth us to the incorruptible temple.


Barnabas 16:10
For he that desireth to be saved looketh not to the man, but to Him
that dwelleth and speaketh in him, being amazed at this that he has
never at any time heard these words from the mouth of the speaker,
nor himself ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple
built up to the Lord.


No writers before or after Irenaeus (and perhaps Hippolytus) decapitated the 70th week. Jerome subsequently drew attention to Irenaeus' error.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Gideon
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Irenaeus, for instance, spoke of two past dispensations, as well as the present one, and "possible future ones." He used the word dispensation, in the singular or plural, more than forty times, and said that a lack of knowledge of the dispensations kept people from understanding Bible prophecy. He clearly referred to the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy as being yet to come, and he taught a rapture before the great tribulation.

I have seen the flimsy evidence that Irenaeus taught a pretrib rapture on more than one occasion.

It uses the same type of logic in Grant Jeffrey's article found below.

Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf

.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Dr. Thomas Ice, Pre-Trib Research Center:

Irenaeus


Some have thought that Irenaeus (c. 180) could be a pre-trib rapture statement since he actually speaks of the rapture: �the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this [the tribulation],� as noted below:

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, �There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.� For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.[7]

However, the very next statement speaks of believers in the tribulation. When taken within the context of all of Irenaeus� writings on these subjects, it appears that he was not teaching pretribulationism.


I am aware of Tommy Ice's opinion on this. But he has not thoroughly examined the entirety of what Irenaeus taught on this. Irenaeus, like many other early Christian writers, did not see a seven year tribulation in the scriptures, but only a three and a half year one. This was probably due to the fact that the Bible actually only calls the last half of Daniel's seventieth week "great tribulation," which is exactly the term that Irenaeus used.

Irenaeus taught that the Antichrist would destroy the whole world in a three and a half year reign of terror, and that the resurrection would take place after he appeared, but before his reign of terror. This would qualify as a "mid trib rapture" in modern terminology, except that Irenaeus did not teach a seven year "tribulation."

The accuracy of this interpretation of what Irenaeus taught is confirmed by an analysis of his use of nouns and pronouns.

In his account, up to the time of the beginning of the time of the Antichrist, Irenaeus always spoke of the people going through these events as either "the church" or "we" or "us." But after that time he always spoke of the people present in these events as "they", Them," or "those." This clearly shows that he actually saw the church as absent from the scene during the "great tribulation," as he so clearly stated.

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/a-history-of-pre-darby-rapture-advocates#_ftn7
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The Epistle of Barnabas pre-dates Irenaeus, with an undecapitated 70th week:

Barnabas 16:6
But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in
the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it
is written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being
accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the
name of the Lord.


Barnabas 16:7
I find then that there is a temple, How then shall it be built in
the name of the Lord? Understand ye. Before we believed on God, the
abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by
hands; for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because
we did whatsoever was contrary to God.

Barnabas 16:8
But it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Give heed then that
the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously.

Barnabas 16:9
How? Understand ye. By receiving the remission of our sins and
hoping on the Name we became new, created afresh from the beginning.
Wherefore God dwelleth truly in our habitation within us. How? The
word of his faith, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of the
ordinances, the commandments of the teaching, He Himself prophesying
in us, He Himself dwelling in us, opening for us who had been in
bondage unto death the door of the temple, which is the mouth, and
giving us repentance leadeth us to the incorruptible temple.


Barnabas 16:10
For he that desireth to be saved looketh not to the man, but to Him
that dwelleth and speaketh in him, being amazed at this that he has
never at any time heard these words from the mouth of the speaker,
nor himself ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple
built up to the Lord.


No writers before or after Irenaeus (and perhaps Hippolytus) decapitated the 70th week. Jerome subsequently drew attention to Irenaeus' error.

You will notice that these quotations say absolutely nothing whatsoever about tribulation. These have zero bearing on what the early Christians thought about a coming tribulation, or when it would take place.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Irenaeus taught that the Antichrist would destroy the whole world in a three and a half year reign of terror, and that the resurrection would take place after he appeared, but before his reign of terror. This would qualify as a "mid trib rapture" in modern terminology, except that Irenaeus did not teach a seven year "tribulation."

Irenaeus was correct in the 3 1/2 year tribulation period.
It is not a "mid-trib" event, because there is no 7 year tribulation.


The 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Book of Revelation, is at Revelation 11:15.
It is the time when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of God and Christ "forever". How long is "forever"?
Some of us would like to ignore what the verse says, or we would have to admit our doctrine is wrong.


Rev 11:15  Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" 



Then a few verses later we find "the time of the judgment of the dead".
This event is described by Christ in John 5:27-30.


Rev 11:18  The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth." 

This is the Second Coming of Christ.

Chapter 12 begins with a review of Church history including the fall of Satan and the birth and death of Christ.

The Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.
This is also proven by Christ returning "as a thief" in Revelation 16:15-16, and a separate account of His return found in chapter 19.


These facts must be ignored to make the 7 year tribulation period work.

.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You will notice that these quotations say absolutely nothing whatsoever about tribulation. These have zero bearing on what the early Christians thought about a coming tribulation, or when it would take place.
Where did I say that Barnabas said anything about tribulation?

To reiterate, Barnabas pre-dates Irenaeus, and Barnabas' commentary describes an undecapitated 70th week, contrary to Irenaeus. Period.

And Thomas Ice's commentary rebuts the notion that Irenaeus was a pretribber. Ice doesn't believe he's wrong (and he's not), because his commentary remains in full view on his pretrib site.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums