A basic flaw in Partial Preterist interpretation

claninja · Mar 23, 2020

Andrewn said:
I have to confess that my previous comment was a lazy answer. But previously, I stated my belief that the fulfillment of prophecy, which started with the 1st coming of Christ, is building up to a huge crescendo at His 2nd coming. You can call it a near/far fulfillment of prophecy. It is similar to the theological concept of "already" and "not yet."

This type of thinking leads me to accept most of what you, and Eusebius, wrote. The prophecies will be completed when "This same Jesus that is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." So, I don't have to choose between your "yes" and the Futurists' "no."

There are aspects of Zechariah that are yet to take place, for example:

Zec 14:6 On that day, there will be no light.
Splendid things will disappear.
7 On one day known to the Lord, there will be neither day nor night,
but at evening time there will be light.
8 On that day, running water will flow out from Jerusalem,
half of it to the Dead Sea
and half of it to the Mediterranean;
this will happen during the summer and the fall.

Compare this to Revelation:

Rev 21:23 The city doesn’t need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because God’s glory is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of life-giving water,shining like crystal, flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb

John declares the living waters would come forth at the sending of the Spirit, which occurred in the 1st century.

John 7:38-39 Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’” He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given,e because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

As shown Eusebius agrees that zechariah 14:8 is about the sending of the spirit

"And in that day it says: "Living water shall come forth out of Jerusalem." This is that spiritual, sweet, life-giving and saving drink of the teaching of Christ, of which He speaks in the Gospel according to John, when instructing the Samaritan woman:

"If thou knewest who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."

This was the living water, then, that came forth from Jerusalem? For it was thence that its Gospel went forth, and its heralds filled the world, which is meant by the words: "The living water shall go forth to the first sea and the last sea," by which is meant the bounds of the whole world, that toward the Eastern Ocean being called "the first sea," that toward the West being meant by "the last sea," which, indeed, the living water of saving Gospel teaching has filled. Of which He also taught, when He said: "Whosoever shall drink of the water, which I shall give him, shall never thirst." And again He says: "Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly, springing |36 up into everlasting life." And again: "If any thirst, let him come unto me and drink."

claninja · Mar 23, 2020

Andrewn said:
Rev 21:23 The city doesn’t need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because God’s glory is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of life-giving water,shining like crystal, flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb

Using scripture to interpret scripture, we can see that the New Jerusalem = the body of Christ under the new covenant.

Both the body of Christ and the NJ are the bride of the lamb (revelation 21:9, ephesians 5:31-32)

Both the body of Christ and the NJ are built on the foundation of the prophets (Ephesians 2:20, revelation 21:14)

Both the body of Christ and the NJ are where God dwell ( revelation 21:3, 2 Corinthians 6:16-17).

Paul allegorically calls the heavenly Jerusalem the new covenant

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.b 23His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born because of the promise. These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

The author of Hebrews states we "have come" to the heavenly Jerusalem.

Hebrews 12:22 Instead, you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to myriads of angels

sovereigngrace · Mar 23, 2020

claninja said:
There are no early church fathers that associate the 1,000 years as symbolic for Jesus ascending to the throne in heaven in fulfillment of "David never lacking a man to sit on the throne".

There are 2 main writers whose commentary on revelation is that of the 1,000 years being in regards to the 1st advent, which is in agreement with my position: Victorinus and Agustustine.

From Augustine:
"But while the devil is bound, the saints reign with Christ during the same thousand years, understood in the same way, that is, of the time of His first coming"

Augustine explanation of the 1,000 years is that he believes it is the 1,000 years in relation to the death of Christ occurring at the 6th millennium
"And he laid hold," he says, "on the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"—that is, bridled and restrained his power so that he could not seduce and gain possession of those who were to be freed. Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium—"

Victorinus also associates the 1,000 years with the 1st advent of Christ, but then goes on to explay that the 1,000 are related to the 6th day or 6th age and that after that satan will be released from pit for a little seaon of 3.5 years.

"Those years wherein Satan is bound are in the first advent of Christ, even to the end of the age; and they are called a thousand, according to that mode of speaking, wherein a part is signified by the whole, just as is that passage, the word which He commanded for a thousand generations, although they are not a thousand. Moreover that he says, and he cast him into the abyss, he says this, because the devil, excluded from the hearts of believers, began to take possession of the wicked, in whose hearts, blinded day by day, he is shut up as if in a profound abyss. And he shut him up, says he, and put a seal upon him, that he should not deceive the nations until the thousand years should be finished. He shut the door upon him, it is said, that is, he forbade and restrained his seducing those who belong to Christ. Moreover, he put a seal upon him, because it is hidden who belong to the side of the devil, and who to that of Christ. For we know not of those who seem to stand whether they shall not fall, and of those who are down it is uncertain whether they may rise. Moreover, that he says that he is bound and shut up, that he may not seduce the nations, the nations signify the Church, seeing that of them it itself is formed, and which being seduced, he previously held until, he says, the thousand years should be completed, that is, what is left of the sixth day, to wit, of the sixth age, which subsists for a thousand years; after this he must be loosed for a little season. The little season signifies three years and six months, in which with all his power the devil will avenge himself under Antichrist against the Church"

So While I agree with the early writers that the 1,000 years is associated with Christ's 1st advent, I disagree that the 1,000 years is in regards to the 6th age or 6000th year.

Additionally, I agree with the amil position that 1,000 years is in regards to Christ's 1st advent, but I disagree with the amil position that it is symbolic for the time period between the 1st and 2nd advent because satan comes at the end of the 1,000 years according to revelation, and not Jesus. The judgment does not come until after satan's little season.

Thus my position, is that the 1,000 year is symbolic for Christ fulfilling the promise of David never lacking a man on the throne, which resulted in Satan being bound and cast out, the apostles judging Israel, being born again, and those in Christ being a kingdom of priests.

I view this all as fulfilled/brought to completion at Christ's 1st advent (the cross), which results in lasting effects for those in the new covenant.

Many early church fathers taught chiliasm, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea.

Do you believe in chiliasm because the early church writers believed in chiliasm?

The early church fathers are pretty uniform (for the most part) on the 1st advent. However, the church fathers are all over the place with their eschatology.

I don't agree with a lot of your conclusions re the ECFs. You have obviously not researched them in any depth.

For example, between AD 30-AD 130 there were 12 Amils and 1 Chiliast ECFs:

Amils

Thaddeus
Edessa, Syria
(early 1st Century)

The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)
Palestine
(A.D. 65-80)

Mathetes
Greece
(A.D 90)

The Shepherd of Hermas
Rome, Italy
(written in 88-99 AD)

Clement
Bishop of Rome, Italy
(Died around 99 A.D.)

The grandsons of Jude
Palestine
(1st century)

2 Clement
Rome, Italy
(Early 2nd century)

Ignatius
Bishop of Antioch, Syria
(A.D. 98-117)

Polycarp
Bishop in Smyrna, Turkey
(Born AD 68, writes about AD 110, martyred about AD 155)

Barnabus
(Alexandria, Egypt)
(A.D. 70-131)

The Ascension of Isaiah
Palestine
(late 1st century to early 2nd century)

Chiliasts

Papias
Hierapolis, Turkey
(A.D. 98-117)

keras · Mar 23, 2020

claninja said:
How many years were there between David and Jesus?

Solomon's reign commenced in 1009 BC.
This is subtracted back from the given time periods of the kings of Judah, from the known date of the Babylonian conquest of Judah, 586 BC, to the date of when the Temple construction started. 1 Kings 6:1 1013 minus 4 = 1009 BC.
Therefore the Birth of Jesus doesn't fall within 1000 years of Davids reign and has no bearing on God's Promise to David.
But the Throne of David over the House of Israel HAS been continuous. Queen Elizabeth 2 is the current incumbent. Soon to be taken by the Rightful One, by Jesus when He Returns.

sovereigngrace · Mar 23, 2020

claninja said:
There are no early church fathers that associate the 1,000 years as symbolic for Jesus ascending to the throne in heaven in fulfillment of "David never lacking a man to sit on the throne".

There are 2 main writers whose commentary on revelation is that of the 1,000 years being in regards to the 1st advent, which is in agreement with my position: Victorinus and Agustustine.

From Augustine:
"But while the devil is bound, the saints reign with Christ during the same thousand years, understood in the same way, that is, of the time of His first coming"

Augustine explanation of the 1,000 years is that he believes it is the 1,000 years in relation to the death of Christ occurring at the 6th millennium
"And he laid hold," he says, "on the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"—that is, bridled and restrained his power so that he could not seduce and gain possession of those who were to be freed. Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium—"

Victorinus also associates the 1,000 years with the 1st advent of Christ, but then goes on to explay that the 1,000 are related to the 6th day or 6th age and that after that satan will be released from pit for a little seaon of 3.5 years.

"Those years wherein Satan is bound are in the first advent of Christ, even to the end of the age; and they are called a thousand, according to that mode of speaking, wherein a part is signified by the whole, just as is that passage, the word which He commanded for a thousand generations, although they are not a thousand. Moreover that he says, and he cast him into the abyss, he says this, because the devil, excluded from the hearts of believers, began to take possession of the wicked, in whose hearts, blinded day by day, he is shut up as if in a profound abyss. And he shut him up, says he, and put a seal upon him, that he should not deceive the nations until the thousand years should be finished. He shut the door upon him, it is said, that is, he forbade and restrained his seducing those who belong to Christ. Moreover, he put a seal upon him, because it is hidden who belong to the side of the devil, and who to that of Christ. For we know not of those who seem to stand whether they shall not fall, and of those who are down it is uncertain whether they may rise. Moreover, that he says that he is bound and shut up, that he may not seduce the nations, the nations signify the Church, seeing that of them it itself is formed, and which being seduced, he previously held until, he says, the thousand years should be completed, that is, what is left of the sixth day, to wit, of the sixth age, which subsists for a thousand years; after this he must be loosed for a little season. The little season signifies three years and six months, in which with all his power the devil will avenge himself under Antichrist against the Church"

So While I agree with the early writers that the 1,000 years is associated with Christ's 1st advent, I disagree that the 1,000 years is in regards to the 6th age or 6000th year.

Additionally, I agree with the amil position that 1,000 years is in regards to Christ's 1st advent, but I disagree with the amil position that it is symbolic for the time period between the 1st and 2nd advent because satan comes at the end of the 1,000 years according to revelation, and not Jesus. The judgment does not come until after satan's little season.

Thus my position, is that the 1,000 year is symbolic for Christ fulfilling the promise of David never lacking a man on the throne, which resulted in Satan being bound and cast out, the apostles judging Israel, being born again, and those in Christ being a kingdom of priests.

I view this all as fulfilled/brought to completion at Christ's 1st advent (the cross), which results in lasting effects for those in the new covenant.

Many early church fathers taught chiliasm, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea.

Do you believe in chiliasm because the early church writers believed in chiliasm?

The early church fathers are pretty uniform (for the most part) on the 1st advent. However, the church fathers are all over the place with their eschatology.

Between AD 130-AD 230 there were 17 Amils, 5 Chiliasts, and 1 unknown ECFs.

Amils

The Apocalypse of Peter
Palestine
(written between the years 132-135)

Epistula Apostolorum (Epistle of the Apostles)
Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(The 140s)

The Odes of Solomon
Syria
(Middle of the 2nd century)

The Teachings of Silvanus
Alexandria, Egypt
150 AD

Aviricius Marcellus
Bishop of Hieropolis, Lesser Phrygia, Turkey
(flourished about 163 AD)

Tatian
Syrian
(A.D. 170)

Athenagoras
Athens, Greece
(wrote A.D. 177)

Letter from Vienna and Lyons, Gaul (now France)
(AD177-AD178)

Hegesippus
Jerusalem, Palestine
(flourished between 150 and 180 A.D)

Melito
Bishop of Sardis, Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(d. c. 180)

Theophilus
Bishop of Antioch, Syria
(His death probably occurred between 183 – 185)

Claudius Apollinaris
Bishop of Hierapolis, Turkey
(2nd century)

5 Ezra
(2nd century)
Israel

Old Roman Symbol (or Old Roman Creed)
(Rome, Italy)
(200AD)

Clement
Alexandria, Egypt
(c.150 - c. 215)

The Gospel of Nicodemus (or Acts Of Pilate)
(probably Palestine)
(150-255 AD)

The Acts of Thomas
Syria
(200-225 AD)

Origen
Alexandria, Egypt
(185-254)

Chiliasts

Justin
Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(AD 100-166)

Irenaeus
Bishop of Lyons, Gaul, (now France)
(AD 150)

Hippolytus
Rome, Italy
(AD 170 – 236)

Tertullian
Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia)
(c. 160 – c. 220 AD)

Unknown

Polycrates
Bishop of Ephesus, ancient Greek city (now Turkey)
(flourished c.130 - 196)

DavidPT · Mar 23, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Between AD 130-AD 230 there were 17 Amils, 5 Chiliasts, and 1 unknown ECFs.

Yet we don't know that for a fact, do we? As in, we don't have a record of what every single Christian between 130-AD 230 thought of the thousand years. For all we know there could have been hundreds, maybe even thousands of Chiliasts between that period of time. The same can be true about Amils as well. We simply don't know. None of us know. So to simply base things on known records showing Amils outnumbered Chiliasts during this time, proves zero one way or the other. The only thing that is proved, clearly there were both Amils and Chiliasts during this period of time. One can't then claim Amil is a modern invention or that Premil is a modern invention. Granted, not all Amils today nor all Premils today, conclude everything those back then did. But even so, to be Amil one has to place the thousand years before the 2nd coming. To be a Chiliast one has to place the thousand years after the 2nd coming, therefore Chiliasts and Premils are one and the same, in that regards at least.

sovereigngrace · Mar 23, 2020

DavidPT said:
Yet we don't know that for a fact, do we? As in, we don't have a record of what every single Christian between 130-AD 230 thought of the thousand years. For all we know there could have been hundreds, maybe even thousands of Chiliasts between that period of time. The same can be true about Amils as well. We simply don't know. None of us know. So to simply base things on known records showing Amils outnumbered Chiliasts during this time, proves zero one way or the other. The only thing that is proved, clearly there were both Amils and Chiliasts during this period of time. One can't then claim Amil is a modern invention or that Premil is a modern invention. Granted, not all Amils today nor all Premils today, conclude everything those back then did. But even so, to be Amil one has to place the thousand years before the 2nd coming. To be a Chiliast one has to place the thousand years after the 2nd coming, therefore Chiliasts and Premils are one and the same, in that regards at least.

I agree, but I think you are missing the point. ECFs stands for Early Church Fathers, particularly the writers. We have a surprising array of they manuscripts, despite the centuries.

claninja · Mar 23, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
I don't agree with a lot of your conclusions re the ECFs. You have obviously not researched them in any depth.

For example, between AD 30-AD 130 there were 12 Amils and 1 Chiliast ECFs:

Amils

Thaddeus
Edessa, Syria
(early 1st Century)

The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)
Palestine
(A.D. 65-80)

Mathetes
Greece
(A.D 90)

The Shepherd of Hermas
Rome, Italy
(written in 88-99 AD)

Clement
Bishop of Rome, Italy
(Died around 99 A.D.)

The grandsons of Jude
Palestine
(1st century)

2 Clement
Rome, Italy
(Early 2nd century)

Ignatius
Bishop of Antioch, Syria
(A.D. 98-117)

Polycarp
Bishop in Smyrna, Turkey
(Born AD 68, writes about AD 110, martyred about AD 155)

Barnabus
(Alexandria, Egypt)
(A.D. 70-131)

The Ascension of Isaiah
Palestine
(late 1st century to early 2nd century)

Chiliasts

Papias
Hierapolis, Turkey
(A.D. 98-117)

Which conclusions do you disagree with specifically?

As to your list of 12 “amil” authors, can you provide any specific writings that prove they were amil, and rejected chiliasm? I would be really interested in this as maybe you have resources that I am unaware of.

Absence of writings on the millennium does not indicate one’s position on the millennium as Amil. As there are not many commentaries on the millennium in revelation 20 from the early church fathers, I find your assertion more of an assumption, but am will to concede if you produce commentaries on revelation and the millennium from your amil ecf list

claninja · Mar 23, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
I agree, but I think you are missing the point. ECFs stands for Early Church Fathers, particularly the writers. We have a surprising array of they manuscripts, despite the centuries.

how many commentaries or mentions there of do we have on revelation 20 from your list of amil early church fathers?

claninja · Mar 23, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Between AD 130-AD 230 there were 17 Amils, 5 Chiliasts, and 1 unknown ECFs.

Amils

The Apocalypse of Peter
Palestine
(written between the years 132-135)

Epistula Apostolorum (Epistle of the Apostles)
Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(The 140s)

The Odes of Solomon
Syria
(Middle of the 2nd century)

The Teachings of Silvanus
Alexandria, Egypt
150 AD

Aviricius Marcellus
Bishop of Hieropolis, Lesser Phrygia, Turkey
(flourished about 163 AD)

Tatian
Syrian
(A.D. 170)

Athenagoras
Athens, Greece
(wrote A.D. 177)

Letter from Vienna and Lyons, Gaul (now France)
(AD177-AD178)

Hegesippus
Jerusalem, Palestine
(flourished between 150 and 180 A.D)

Melito
Bishop of Sardis, Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(d. c. 180)

Theophilus
Bishop of Antioch, Syria
(His death probably occurred between 183 – 185)

Claudius Apollinaris
Bishop of Hierapolis, Turkey
(2nd century)

5 Ezra
(2nd century)
Israel

Old Roman Symbol (or Old Roman Creed)
(Rome, Italy)
(200AD)

Clement
Alexandria, Egypt
(c.150 - c. 215)

The Gospel of Nicodemus (or Acts Of Pilate)
(probably Palestine)
(150-255 AD)

The Acts of Thomas
Syria
(200-225 AD)

Origen
Alexandria, Egypt
(185-254)

Chiliasts

Justin
Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(AD 100-166)

Irenaeus
Bishop of Lyons, Gaul, (now France)
(AD 150)

Hippolytus
Rome, Italy
(AD 170 – 236)

Tertullian
Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia)
(c. 160 – c. 220 AD)

Unknown

Polycrates
Bishop of Ephesus, ancient Greek city (now Turkey)
(flourished c.130 - 196)

We know who the ecf chiliaists are because of there writings on chiliasm. We know who the ecf against chiliasm are because of there writings against it.

What commentaries or mentions of revelation 20 from your amil list provide insight as to what they believed about the millennium?

claninja · Mar 23, 2020

keras said:
Solomon's reign commenced in 1009 BC.
This is subtracted back from the given time periods of the kings of Judah, from the known date of the Babylonian conquest of Judah, 586 BC, to the date of when the Temple construction started. 1 Kings 6:1 1013 minus 4 = 1009 BC.
Therefore the Birth of Jesus doesn't fall within 1000 years of Davids reign and has no bearing on God's Promise to David.
But the Throne of David over the House of Israel HAS been continuous. Queen Elizabeth 2 is the current incumbent. Soon to be taken by the Rightful One, by Jesus when He Returns.

David’s reign is traditionally placed somewhere between 1000bc to 970bc

Add 1,000 years and you come to the time of Christ.

sovereigngrace · Mar 23, 2020

claninja said:
We know who the ecf chiliaists are because of there writings on chiliasm. We know who the ecf against chiliasm are because of there writings against it.

What commentaries or mentions of revelation 20 from your amil list provide insight as to what they believed about the millennium?

The Amil ECFs I identify portrayed the coming of Christ as climactic and were devoid of any reference to a future millennial kingdom. What is more, the Regnum Caelorum by Charles Hill did a great ground-breaking service to the scholarly community in piecing together the unique undercurrents existing within both ancient Amil and Chiliasm. This has helped modern historians identify the prevailing eschatological position of each camp. All the early Chiliasts believed (like apostate Judaism, where they got their doctrine) in an intermediate state in Hades during the intra-Advent period. The Amils believed it was in heaven.

Also, recent finding on the fact that many ECFs believed in the idea of 6,000 years without believing in a 7th 1,000 years, but rather an eternal day, has helped us dispel Premil misinformation and objectively identify the theological position of these early writers.

This subject is so broad. Multiple quotes could be brought to the table. My own research has been only about 10 years, and is ongoing. I have much more digging to do.

Philip Schaff says in his History of the Christian Church (Volume 2, Chapter 12): “The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.”

Since Schaff wrote his volumes many more ancient writing have come to the fore and been translated into English. More and more scholarly evangelical writings like Regnum Caelorum by Charles Hill's book and The Hope of the Early Church by Brian E Daley have outlined the climactic beliefs of the Early Fathers.

In 1976 Premillennialist Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a master’s thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church."

Boyd concluded, “...although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic similarity with the modern system" (p. 89).

Boyd adds: "Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp and Hegesippus can not be claimed as premillennialists.” pg. 92

Upon completing his thesis, Boyd concluded, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis [apostolic age through Justin Martyr]."

sovereigngrace · Mar 23, 2020

claninja said:
how many commentaries or mentions there of do we have on revelation 20 from your list of amil early church fathers?

Not many commentaries. But there are various quotes of details pertaining to the chapter. The longer history developed the more vocal the writers became.

The commentary you attribute to Victorinus (a Chiliast) was rewritten by Jerome to be Amil. But it was originally Chiliast.

Christian Gedge · Mar 23, 2020

claninja said:
David’s reign is traditionally placed somewhere between 1000bc to 970bc

Add 1,000 years and you come to the time of Christ.

Yes, 1000 BC to 968 BC. Check out my chronology here:

keras · Mar 23, 2020

claninja said:
David’s reign is traditionally placed somewhere between 1000bc to 970bc

Add 1,000 years and you come to the time of Christ.

Happy to reject actual Biblical time periods, are you?

Traditions and the scribbles of practically uneducated dignitaries of the early Catholic Church, suit your beliefs much better that the confusing [to you] ancient Bible Prophets.

claninja · Mar 24, 2020

Andrewn said:
The effects will not only last forever but will grow in a crescendo until the redemption of our bodies and submitting the Kingdom to God.

No disagreement.

Andrewn said:
Every Jew knew that “the times of the Gentiles” were the times when the Gentiles ruled the earth, and that it would end when the Messiah established His kingdom over all and ended Gentile domination. Then Jerusalem would be free from threat, and all the Gentiles would acknowledge her sovereignty.

In other words, Jesus was saying that Jerusalem would be trodden down until the Second Coming and the end of the world. The Book of Revelation refers to “the times of the Gentiles” by the term “the kingdom of the world” (Revelation 11:15). This where we disagree.

I am sort of agreement. I believe the times of the gentiles refers to the 4 gentile kingdoms (babylon, persia, greece, rome) of Daniel 2:37-40 and Daniel 7:17 as having authority over old covenant earthly Jerusalem.

I believe the times of the gentiles ended during the 4th kingdom (rome) for the following reasons:

Daniel states there would be 4 kingdoms, but the saints would inherit the kingdom forever.

daniel 7:17-18 These four great beasts are four kings who will arise from the earth. But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’

Jesus states the saints would be given the kingdom at the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened during the 4th kingdom (rome)

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit

Jesus was Ruler over the kings of the earth at the time of the vision or Revelation, which during the (roman empire), thus I believe that all kingdoms are already His.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Earthly Jerusalem is no longer representative of God's covenant, its people were going to be cast out to never share the inheritance with those of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Galatians 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? “Expel the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son

the gentiles don't rule over Jerusalem, Jesus does. As a gentile, I can attest that Jesus is my king and I have put my hope in him.

Romans 15:8-9,12 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs, so that the Gentiles may glorify God for His mercy. As it is written:“Therefore I will praise You among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to Your name.” And once more, Isaiah says:“The Root of Jesse will appear, One who will arise to rule over the Gentiles; in Him the Gentiles will put their hope

claninja · Mar 24, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
The Amil ECFs I identify portrayed the coming of Christ as climactic and were devoid of any reference to a future millennial kingdom. What is more, the Regnum Caelorum by Charles Hill did a great ground-breaking service to the scholarly community in piecing together the unique undercurrents existing within both ancient Amil and Chiliasm. This has helped modern historians identify the prevailing eschatological position of each camp. All the early Chiliasts believed (like apostate Judaism, where they got their doctrine) in an intermediate state in Hades during the intra-Advent period. The Amils believed it was in heaven.

Right, but you have to let us know that you don't believe in a future millennial kingdom. If you never mentioned anything about a millennial kingdom or rejection thereof, I would have no Idea what you believed on the millennium, and thus any conclusion of mine would be an assumption, not fact.

The fact is there were many that believed in chiliasm, and there were many that rejected it. Does the fact that Chiliasm was believed by some early church fathers make it true? No.

sovereigngrace said:
Also, recent finding on the fact that many ECFs believed in the idea of 6,000 years without believing in a 7th 1,000 years, but rather an eternal day, has helped us dispel Premil misinformation and objectively identify the theological position of these early writers.

was this believed by all amils?

sovereigngrace said:
Philip Schaff says in his History of the Christian Church (Volume 2, Chapter 12): “The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.”

Since Schaff wrote his volumes many more ancient writing have come to the fore and been translated into English. More and more scholarly evangelical writings like Regnum Caelorum by Charles Hill's book and The Hope of the Early Church by Brian E Daley have outlined the climactic beliefs of the Early Fathers.

In 1976 Premillennialist Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a master’s thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church."

Boyd concluded, “...although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic similarity with the modern system" (p. 89).

Boyd adds: "Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp and Hegesippus can not be claimed as premillennialists.” pg. 92

Upon completing his thesis, Boyd concluded, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis [apostolic age through Justin Martyr]."

None of this provides evidence as to what your "amil" list wrote about the millennium.

Absence of Evidence is not proof.

sovereigngrace said:
Not many commentaries. But there are various quotes of details pertaining to the chapter. The longer history developed the more vocal the writers became.

Right, so I'm not understanding then how one can place some of the early church fathers in an "amil" camp without evidence as to what they believed on the millennium.

sovereigngrace said:
The commentary you attribute to Victorinus (a Chiliast) was rewritten by Jerome to be Amil. But it was originally Chiliast.

No disagreement here. The early Church belief of Chiliasm was rightly rejected, as especially evidenced with the nicene creed.

claninja · Mar 24, 2020

keras said:
Happy to reject actual Biblical time periods, are you?

Traditions and the scribbles of practically uneducated dignitaries of the early Catholic Church, suit your beliefs much better that the confusing [to you] ancient Bible Prophets.

Instead of being derogatory about it, you could just provide your resources to show why you are right. That would be more helpful.

sovereigngrace · Mar 24, 2020

claninja said:
Right, but you have to let us know that you don't believe in a future millennial kingdom. If you never mentioned anything about a millennial kingdom or rejection thereof, I would have no Idea what you believed on the millennium, and thus any conclusion of mine would be an assumption, not fact.

The fact is there were many that believed in chiliasm, and there were many that rejected it. Does the fact that Chiliasm was believed by some early church fathers make it true? No.

was this believed by all amils?

None of this provides evidence as to what your "amil" list wrote about the millennium.

Absence of Evidence is not proof.

Right, so I'm not understanding then how one can place some of the early church fathers in an "amil" camp without evidence as to what they believed on the millennium.

No disagreement here. The early Church belief of Chiliasm was rightly rejected, as especially evidenced with the nicene creed.

I have books-worth of research. What do you want? I am not going to off-load everything here. We need to narrow it down. Is there any writer you are particularly interested in? And what particularly are you interested in?

Many dive into the ECFs and impose upon them like they do with Scripture. They do not grasp the major difference on the intermediate state. There are lots of key evidences that many miss.

DavidPT · Mar 24, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Boyd adds: "Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp and Hegesippus can not be claimed as premillennialists.” pg. 92

Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

Barnabas 15:6
Yea and furthermore He saith; Thou shalt hallow it with pure hands
and with a pure heart. If therefore a man is able now to hallow
the day which God hallowed, though he be pure in heart, we have gone
utterly astray.

Barnabas 15:7
But if after all then and not till then shall we truly rest and
hallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to do so after being
justified and receiving the promise, when iniquity is no more and all
things have been made new by the Lord, we shall be able to hallow it
then, because we ourselves shall have been hallowed first.

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot
away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present
Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have
made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another
world.

Barnabas 15:9
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
into the heavens.
The Epistle of Barnabas (translation J.B. Lightfoot)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in examining things, then seeing if these conclusions match the texts in question, before I'm going to take someone's word for something, such as, according to Boyd, Barnabas, for example, can't be claimed as Premil.

Obviously, according to Barnabas 15:8, the eighth day is meaning the beginning of eternity where everyone will have been cast into the LOF except for those worthy to obtain this other world. Obiously as well, the 8th day does not come after the 6th day, it comes after the 7th day.

Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

This verse is applying the first 6 days to that of six 1000 year periods, and at the end of these 6000 years, everything shall come to an end. Obviously pertaining to this present age. We cannot then apply Barnabas 15:8 at the end of this 6000 years, since that would be to ignore that a 7th day has to follow a sixth day.

Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

If this precedes the 8th day meant in Barnabas 15:8, yet follows the 6 days meant in Barnabas 15:4, and that in that same verse he clearly took a thousand years in the literal sense in 2 Peter 3:8, doesn't it stand to reason that he is also applying a thousand years to that of the 7th day, therefore making him a Chiliast, and certainly not an Amil?

A basic flaw in Partial Preterist interpretation

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads