Is the Day of the Lord exactly 1000 years as Premils claim?

Timtofly said:

Jesus claims he did not know. How can I know when it starts? You cannot even define a tribulation. How would you know pre, mid, or post? I know no one survives. That is why there is a bodily resurrection in Revelation 20 before the 1000 years happens. We know there is a definite 42 months before total destruction is complete. Do you not accept any of the Trumpets, Thunders, and possibly vials? If the vials are not poured out, then the 42 months did not happen. If you think all is over in 60 minutes, you deny many Scriptures, that you declare meaningless.

It is like predicting the Revolutionary War in 1500 and stating it will only take 60 minutes, who cares about the details.

Click to expand...

Timtofly said:

Really? The Second Coming is the thief in the night moment. You really want me to tell you when God is going to send Jesus Christ, when Jesus Christ said he did not know. Are you going to accuse Jesus of avoidance? I guess you place me in good company. Peter avoided the Question. Paul avoided the Question. Only a fool sets the date of the Second Coming.

Click to expand...

Timtofly said:

Climactic is not found once in Scripture. That is a private interpretation. About as dramatic as the left behind series. One extreme does not make the other extreme any less of a private interpretation. They both are wrong. You have the Second Coming at the wrong spot in a timeline that you claim does not exist. That is climactic logic.

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

No, I'm relying on the surety of God's Promises. I don't require the corroboration of Fallible men from History to affirm my sure and certain Knowledge that when God Promises to do something, He does it.



The ECF's never had a unified eschatology, but the bulk of them Held that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the first century. How could they have been so wrong about that?



Can you Link to any statement of mine that indicates the ECF's un-unified eschatological musings constituted Hersey in my view?



What precisely is the error of Hymenaeus that Paul is rebuking?

What damning, faith-destroying error did Paul continuously have to address in his epistles? The answer links right up to the error of Hymenaeus:

Galatians 3:1-2,10
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?...as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse

Galatians 2:16,21
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified....I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly

Galatians 5:2-4
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

I could post a dozen other Pauline verses that repeat what was damming everyone in that generation, but those suffice. The belief that justification/salvation came from the Law Covenant of Moses was the damning, faith-destroying error Paul continuously had to address in his epistles.

It was for this same error that Hymenaeus was also being condemned by Paul, for Hymenaeus claimed that the release of the OT dead from Hades occurred within the Mosaic Covenant era. Hymenaeus was thus boldly claiming that the OT dead were saved through the Law Covenant of Moses. Hymenaeus was teaching salvation by the works of the Mosaic Law. He thus was "bewitched," "under a curse," had "fallen from grace," and was, in essence, saying "Christ died needlessly."

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

Maybe no individual ECF held that ALL Eschatology was fulfilled in 70AD However, when we accumulate all the individual prophesies that any given ECF on their own DID believe to be fulfilled in 70AD, and put them together, we arrive very near a consistent preterist position, even if they were personally inconsistent on their application thereof.

For certain, the greatest number of the earliest Christians believed that a number of, if not all, prophecies of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the first century destruction of Jerusalem. The challenge, in fact, is to find even one early Christian that didn't teach the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. The earliest and most significant writers were in unanimous agreement, proclaiming the fulfillment of these prophecies in the time of the AD70 destruction of the Jewish city, temple and nation.

Here's a snippet:

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

Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew 24 "Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it."

Chrysostom - St. Chrysostom's Liturgy "Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming"

The ECFs recognized:

(1) that the great tribulation is past, transpiring at AD 66-70
(2) that AD 70 involved a coming of Jesus Christ in judgment

So, while they did not establish a biblically consistent preterism, they were far more preteristic in their understanding of eschatology than most modern futurists. The fact is that the ECFs had their hands full with formulating a consistent Christology (the nature of Christ and the Trinity), and didn't spend as much time formulating an orthodox, systematic eschatology. We know that the ECFs had mostly assigned Matthew 24 to the past, and the Protestant Reformers had a majority view that all Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the first century.

Classical preterism (i.e. The Catholic Preterism of the likes of James Aiken, Scott Hahn, St Cryssostom, St Thomas Aquinas, Eusebius, etc...) sees AD 70 as a temporal judgment of God/Christ that is not pertaining to the final advent, except as a general prefiguring of it.

As well as the reformed Thinkers such as C.H Spurgeon
I agree with these respected thinkers on this topic.

C.H. Spurgeon (NOT a Full Preterist) On New Heavens and Earth (1865)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Eusebius all understood this basic principle of bible eschatology, and we really ought to take their words to heart.

As St. Thomas Aquinas taught:
The signs of which we read in the gospels, as Augustine says, writing to Hesychius about the end of the world, refer not only to Christ's [future] coming to judgment, but also to the time of the sack of Jerusalem, and to the coming of Christ in ceaselessly visiting His Church. So that, perhaps, if we consider them carefully, we shall find that none of them refers to the coming advent, as he remarks: because these signs that are mentioned in the gospels, such as wars, fears, and so forth, have been from the beginning of the human race (Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Supplement Question 73, Article 1)

And even St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (AD 336-395)
"Do we romance about three Resurrections? Do we promise the gluttony of the Millennium? Do we declare that the Jewish animal-sacrifices shall be restored? Do we lower men's hopes again to the Jerusalem below, imagining its rebuilding with stones of a more brilliant material? What charge like these can be brought against us, that our company should be reckoned a thing to be avoided?"

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

Maybe no individual ECF held that ALL Eschatology was fulfilled in 70AD However, when we accumulate all the individual prophesies that any given ECF on their own DID believe to be fulfilled in 70AD, and put them together, we arrive very near a consistent preterist position, even if they were personally inconsistent on their application thereof.

For certain, the greatest number of the earliest Christians believed that a number of, if not all, prophecies of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the first century destruction of Jerusalem. The challenge, in fact, is to find even one early Christian that didn't teach the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. The earliest and most significant writers were in unanimous agreement, proclaiming the fulfillment of these prophecies in the time of the AD70 destruction of the Jewish city, temple and nation.

Here's a snippet:

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

Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew 24 "Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it."

Chrysostom - St. Chrysostom's Liturgy "Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming"

The ECFs recognized:

(1) that the great tribulation is past, transpiring at AD 66-70
(2) that AD 70 involved a coming of Jesus Christ in judgment

So, while they did not establish a biblically consistent preterism, they were far more preteristic in their understanding of eschatology than most modern futurists. The fact is that the ECFs had their hands full with formulating a consistent Christology (the nature of Christ and the Trinity), and didn't spend as much time formulating an orthodox, systematic eschatology. We know that the ECFs had mostly assigned Matthew 24 to the past, and the Protestant Reformers had a majority view that all Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the first century.

Classical preterism (i.e. The Catholic Preterism of the likes of James Aiken, Scott Hahn, St Cryssostom, St Thomas Aquinas, Eusebius, etc...) sees AD 70 as a temporal judgment of God/Christ that is not pertaining to the final advent, except as a general prefiguring of it.

As well as the reformed Thinkers such as C.H Spurgeon
I agree with these respected thinkers on this topic.

C.H. Spurgeon (NOT a Full Preterist) On New Heavens and Earth (1865)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Eusebius all understood this basic principle of bible eschatology, and we really ought to take their words to heart.

As St. Thomas Aquinas taught:
The signs of which we read in the gospels, as Augustine says, writing to Hesychius about the end of the world, refer not only to Christ's [future] coming to judgment, but also to the time of the sack of Jerusalem, and to the coming of Christ in ceaselessly visiting His Church. So that, perhaps, if we consider them carefully, we shall find that none of them refers to the coming advent, as he remarks: because these signs that are mentioned in the gospels, such as wars, fears, and so forth, have been from the beginning of the human race (Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Supplement Question 73, Article 1)

And even St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (AD 336-395)
"Do we romance about three Resurrections? Do we promise the gluttony of the Millennium? Do we declare that the Jewish animal-sacrifices shall be restored? Do we lower men's hopes again to the Jerusalem below, imagining its rebuilding with stones of a more brilliant material? What charge like these can be brought against us, that our company should be reckoned a thing to be avoided?"

Click to expand...