- Sep 2, 2010
- 5,205
- 1,046
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Do you realize you just called the Bible nonsense? Do you not believe what's written in the Bible?
Upvote
0
Do you realize you just called the Bible nonsense? Do you not believe what's written in the Bible?
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Whenever one gets disagreeable Jack to agree with something, that indeed is a victory ehehe...having a hard time getting use to agreeing to agree!
Old disagreeable Jack
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Well ya know what they say, one man's nonsense is another man's sense.........
Hos 7:11
“Ephraim also is like a silly dove, without sense—
They call to Egypt,
They go to Assyria.
Zechariah 9:10
I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.'[fn]
Revelation 18:13
“and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep,
horses and chariots,
and bodies and souls of men.
Interesting that 28 voted for option 3...."after the 1000yr period"......
What I think about the 1000yr period
- *
Before the 1000yrs
85 vote(s)
60.3% - During the 1000yrs
2 vote(s)
1.4% - After the 1000yrs
28 vote(s)
19.9% - Doesn't matter to me
26 vote(s)
18.4%
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Here are some interesting studies on that rather unique "1000yr period".
https://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/m/millennial-reign-of-christ.html
Hampden-Cook on Millennium | Concerning the Millennium | A Dissuasive From the Errors of the Time - The thousand years of Christ his visible Reign upon earth, is against Scripture | Millennium | History of Millennialism | Chiliasm in the Early Church | Christian Millennial Expectations through the centuries "the 1,000 is not to be taken literally, but figuratively, and the millennial kingdom is already alive in the Christian Church. This means that all the events described in Revelation had already taken place"
Catechism of the Catholic Church :
"The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism"
"In the age of Constantine, however, a radical change took place in this belief. After Christianity, contrary to all expectation, triumphed in the Roman empire, and was embraced by the Caesars themselves, the millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of Constantine, and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial state-church. From that time chiliasm, not indeed in its essence, as the hope of a golden age of the church on earth, and of a great sabbath of the world after the hard labor of the world's history, but in its distorted Ebionistic form, took its place among the heresies, and was rejected subsequently even by the Protestant reformers as a Jewish dream." (Schaff's History, pg. 299-301)
Epiphanes (315-403)
"There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense." (Heresies, 77:26.)
Eusebius (A.D.325)
"This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Book III, Ch. 39)
Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 8,292
- 1,735
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Yep! I totally agree, from an Amil perspective, that the millennium is not a literal thousand years but Hebrew number symbolism for the 'perfect period of time' and that this is between Jesus ascension and return in judgement. We're in the millennium now.
Upvote
0
Look at these passages:
Deuteronomy 7:9:
9 Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;
Psalms 50:10:
10 “For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.
Psalm 90:4:
4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8:
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
Any doubt that God means eternity in says "thousand" in these passages. Christ 1000 year reign is an undetermined amount of time until He delivers the Kingdom back to the Father as 1 Corinthians 15:20-28.
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 8,292
- 1,735
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Exactly - 1000 in Hebrew is most often like saying "A bazillion", except with the qualifier "God's perfect bazillion" because it is also a number of completeness and fulfilment. Hence God's people as the 144 thousand = 12 (tribes) times 12 (apostles) * 1000. The 144,000 is like saying the "Utterly totally complete" number of God's people.
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Ammillennialism is an interesting study..............
Amillennialism Study Archive @ PreteristArchive.com - The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism @ PreteristArchive.com
Amillennialism
"Armageddon Now" Theology & Christian Zionist Politics
Pro-Dispensationalism | Dispensationalist Dementia
FOR QUESTIONS ON WHETHER EXPLORING THESE ISSUES IS ANTI-SEMITISM, REFER TO THE "ANTISEMITISM" ARCHIVE
STUDY ARCHIVES: Amillennialism | Apocalyptic | Christian Zionism | Dispensationalism | Eschatology | Hermeneutics | Historicism | Idealism | Millennial Reign of Christ | Preterism | New Covenant Theology | Postmillennialism | Premillennialism | Pre-Tribulational Rapture | Reconstructionism | "Seventy Weeks" | Parousia | Universalism | J.N. Darby | Jerry Falwell | Thomas Ice | Tim LaHaye | Hal Lindsey | C.I. Scofield | Jack and Rexella Van Impe | John F. Walvoord | Christian Zionism and Salvation for the Jews | Philip Mauro: The Gospel of the Kingdom & The Hope of Israel
Are you a Christian Zionist? Take the litmus test: "Do you believe that the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy?"
Christian Zionism: The Tragedy and The Turning | How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend
Amillennialism - Wiki | A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism | Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation | amillennialism and premillennialism | Google Books | Premillennialism vs Amillennialism
Oswald Allis | St. Aurelius Augustine | J. Marcellus Kik | Kim Riddlebarger | John Wesley
Preterist Amillenarianism Defined
Posted by Jason Robertson
What Amillennialism Is Not:
- It does not deny the existence of a "millennium."
- It does not require one to be a pedobaptist or immersionist.
- It does not symbolize everything in the Bible.
- It does not have a non-literal understanding of the Bible.
- It does not hold to a literal "golden age" on earth like the many Postmillenarians.
- It is not "replacement theology."
- It is not anti-semetic.
1. It follows a grammatical-historical-literal interpretation of the Scriptures which includes the allegorical interpretations. For example, Amilleniarians recognize that Galatians 4:21-31 is literally requiring its readers to recognize the allegorical or "spiritual" lessons God taught us in Genesis with reference to Sarah and Hagar. Such literal interpretive principles leads one only to conclude that Israel as an ethnic group in the OT was real but typological spiritually. And that Abraham's true offspring or true "Israel" has nothing to do with one's ethnicity but one's faith (Galatians 3:29).
2. It looks at the Bible as a unit which contains no contradictions.
3. It believes there is no “gap” in Daniel’s prophecy of Seventy Weeks, but that it was fulfilled with the desolation of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army in 70 A.D. (as the Tribulation judgment against non-believing Israel).
4. It believes explicitly in the millennium of Revelation 20 as a complete period of time, the length of which is only known by God, and that the millennial kingdom of Christ began with His incarnation and will consummate at His Second Coming. It could better be called a “Realized Millennium.” It believes that the millennium is the literally the spiritual reign of Christ on earth in the kingdom of His church and in the saints in heaven. It believes entrance to the on-going millennium is gained solely through the new birth, and that John refers to this as the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 (supported by Ephesians 2:1,5,6 and Colossians 2:13; 3:1.) It believes that every person who is born again immediately becomes a child of the King and immediately begins an eternal reign with that King, and that the present phase of that reign is a mere foretaste of what lies beyond the Second Coming.
5. It believes that although he cannot prevail against the Church, Satan still goes about as a roaring lion tempting, defying, deceiving, until Christ shall put him down finally at His Second Coming. It believes that good and evil will exist side by side until the harvest, which Jesus said will be the end of the world (Matt. 13:39). 15. It believes that Satan will be allowed to mount one final climactic antichrist rebellion and apostasy just before the Second Coming (Revelation 16:14; 20:7,8). It believes in only one first resurrection and only one last trump.
6. It believes the Second Coming of Christ to be a literal, visible, bodily coming. It believes that at the Second Coming all the saints, living and dead, will be raptured to meet the Lord in the air, given new spiritual bodies, and then escort their King to the earth. It believes that the millennium will end with the Second Coming of Christ followed by the judgments of the living and the dead, saved and lost (Matt. 13:24-30; 47-53) and the creation of a new heaven and earth. It views the Second Coming as the consummation of the Redemption story prior to everlasting glory on the New Earth.
Just to name a few of the many Amillenarians* and some of the many like-minded Post-millenarians:
Upvote
0
Hello. 2 different comings/parousias?! Is that even an orthodox view?
From what I have heard, Amills [which is the view of the RCC] believes they are now in the 1000yr period.
I really wonder how Amills can arrive at that view without taking these verses in consideration?
When did this harvest of the earth occur in the past? Just confused on this.
Matthew 13:30 ‘Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ' ”
39 “The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
Hebrews 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation.
Revelation 14:14
Then I looked and behold! a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.
15 and another messenger did come forth out of the sanctuary crying in a great voice to him who is sitting upon the cloud, 'Send forth thy sickle and reap, because come to thee hath the hour of reaping, because ripe hath been the harvest of the earth;'
Millennialism:
- Amillennialism: "no millennium", rejects the theory that Jesus Christ will have a thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth. The amillennial viewpoint holds that the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 is a symbolic number, not a literal description; that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the current church age.
- Premillennialism: is the belief that Jesus Christ will literally and physically be on the earth for his millennial reign at his second coming. The doctrine is called premillennialism because it holds that Jesus' physical return to earth will occur prior to the inauguration of the millennium.
- Postmillennialism: is an interpretation of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation which sees Christ's second coming as occurring after the "Millennium", a Golden Age in which Christian ethics prosper.
Last edited:
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
- Nov 25, 2017
- 4,861
- 1,022
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
The 1st century Church fathers were all... pre-millennialists.
The earliest hint of the amillennial doctrine was with the pseudo writing Epistle of Barnabas contained in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, a writing Eusebius classified as a spurious writing.
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 8,292
- 1,735
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
That 1000yr period in Revelation is very intriguing.
Accoding to the poll so far, the majority lean towards a premill return and as I also do now.
I am not sure whether Christ will reign physically on earth or not, however the OP appears to simply ask does Christ return before or after the 1000yrs? I don't see how it can seriously be both. Why is this such an issure with Chrisitans?
These 2 verses in Revelation appear to show without a shadow of a doubt that this is the 2nd coming/parousia of Christ
Revelation 14:14
Then I looked and behold! a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.
Revelation 19:11
Now I saw heaven opened, and behold! a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
===========================
I did a google search on how the ECFs view premill:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&biw=1138&bih=522&sxsrf=ALeKk0181Pvhm6kd2W2rLUIAPl6aW37xSA:1587220523352&ei=KxCbXryLFauAtgX76L-YBw&q=premillennialism+early+church&oq=premillennialism+early+church&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIGCAAQFhAeMgUIABDNAjIFCAAQzQIyBQgAEM0COgQIABBHUOOPCFjjjwhgt6MIaABwBHgAgAFfiAFfkgEBMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj8zOWbmfLoAhUrgK0KHXv0D3MQ4dUDCAs
The Early Witness to Premillennialism
So how can church history help us on this controversial issue of the millennium?
It can benefit us as we seek to understand the millennial beliefs of those who were in close connection with the Apostle John, the one who penned Rev 20:1–10. It can also help as we examine the beliefs of those in close geographical proximity to Asia Minor where the Apostle John spent his later years.
Our argument is this—we think it probable that those who had close association with John would also have a correct understanding of what John meant by the millennium.
First, let’s look to two individuals who had connection historically with John—Papias and Irenaeus. Papias (A.D. 60–130) was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. He was a contemporary of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.
According to Martin Erdman, Papias “represented a chiliastic [premillennial] tradition which had its antecedents in Palestine” (The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church, 107.) Papias’s dependence on the oral teachings of the apostles and elders has been documented by both Irenaeus and Eusebius.
Eusebius points out that Papias received “doctrines of the faith” that came from the “friends” of the twelve apostles (Ecclesiastical History, III.39.2.) Eusebius also said of Papias, “It is worthwhile observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist” (ibid.).
Papias, thus, saw himself as possessing the teachings of the apostles. As Eusebius notes, “And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them” (ibid., 39.7). Irenaeus also refers to Papias as “a hearer of John” (Against Heresies, V. 33.4).
It appears that Papias had close connections with the apostles, and John in particular.
So did Papias hold a particular millennial view?.............................
Conclusion:
If premillennialism was the intended view of John the Apostle, it seems natural to think that those who knew him or were associated with him would also affirm premillennialism. So, if John the Apostle lived in Asia Minor, it appears likely that those Christians near his area of influence would share the views of John on the millenium. When such factors are considered, the witness of church history provides strong support for the premillennial position.
On the other hand, for amillennialism or postmillennialism to be correct, we have to believe that those who had close connections with John, either personally or geographically, were woefully wrong regarding their views of the millennium. In our view, this is improbable.
In closing, we understand that the case for a particular millennial view does not rest solely on what certain Christians in the early church believed. Scripture, not church history, determines the correctness of a theological view.
But it seems that the historical argument is on the side of premillennialism since people close to John held premillennial views, and because premillennialism was the overwhelming view of those in Asia Minor and the church as a whole of the second century.
-----------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
Upvote
0
sovereigngrace
Well-Known Member
- Dec 9, 2019
- 9,042
- 3,450
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Where is you evidence? You have repeatedly stated this, yet failed to provide one bit of evidence to support this.
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described sin existing on a future millennial earth?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described corruption existing on a future millennial earth?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described the wicked existing on a future millennial earth?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described mortals existing on a future millennial earth?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described decay existing on a future millennial earth?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described the curse existing on a future millennial earth?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described Satan existing on a future millennial earth?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium which involved the elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups as Premil does?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving a renewal of the Jewish sacrifice system as Premil does?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving carnal pleasure like procreating in the age to come as Premil does?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that advocated the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that advocated the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that advocated the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as Premil does?
Please quote any ECF in the first 150 years after the cross that taught that Jesus would be reigning over His enemies for 1,000 years upon David’s throne?
Upvote
0
sovereigngrace
Well-Known Member
- Dec 9, 2019
- 9,042
- 3,450
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't agree with your conclusions re the ECFs. You have obviously not researched them in any depth.
Papias did not take his teaching from John or any of the disciples. Ireneaus was a bias and unreliable historian who's aim was to legitimize Chiliasm. He had an agenda. Irenaeus promotes Papias' teaching, attributing it to John. We now know where it came from: apostate Judaism. That is the roots of Premil.
1. The blessing thus foretold belongs undoubtedly to the times of the Kingdom, when the righteous shall rise from the dead and reign, when too creation renewed and freed from bondage shall produce a wealth of food of all kinds from the dew of heaven and from the fatness of the earth; as the elders, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, relate, that they had heard from him, how the Lord used to teach concerning those times, and to say,
2. "The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty measures of wine.
3 And when any of the saints shall have taken hold of one of their clusters, another shall cry, I am a better cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me. Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of fine flour, bright and clean, and the other fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and all the animals, using these fruits which are products of the soil, shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious, obedient to man in all subjection."
Eusebius seems more reliable. He was actually a church historian, not simply pushing an eschatological agenda.
Eusebius Church History (Book III) chapter 39
1. “Five books of Papias are extant, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Of these Irenaeus also makes mention as the only works written by him, in the following words: `These things Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books. For there are five books composed by him.' So far Irenaeus.
2. Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses, that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their friends:
3. "But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing its truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign commandments, but in those (who record) such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself."
4. "And again, on any occasion when a person came (in my way) who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the elders -- what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice."
5. Here it is worthwhile to observe that he twice enumerates the name of John. The first he mentions in connexion with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, evidently meaning the Evangelist, but the other John he mentions after an interval and classes with others outside the number of the Apostles, placing Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him an Elder.
6. So that he hereby makes it quite evident that their statement is true who say that there were two persons of that name in Asia, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which even now is called (the tomb) of John. And it is important to notice this; for it is probable that it was the second, if one will not admit that it was the first, who saw the Revelation which is ascribed by name to John.
7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.
8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.
10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: “And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said.”
11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.
12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenaeus and anyone else that may have proclaimed similar views.
Historians must lean upon Irenaeus and Eusebius when trying to ascertain who Papias was, what he believed and where he got his teaching from. But even this can be a challenge because they view Papias in two completely opposing ways – according to their different eschatological millennial viewpoints. Irenaeus was a Chiliast and Eusebius was an Amillennialist.
Eusebius dismisses Papias saying: “he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.” Irenaeus seems to admire him, introducing him as “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient worthy.”
Whilst Eusebius dismisses Papias, no one can surely underestimate the influence of this early father. Whilst Cerinthus the heretic seems to have been the first to advance modern-day-type-Premil, Papias is the first definite orthodox early church father that propagated Chiliast teaching. Later Chiliasts tend to point to Papias as their early founder.
Premillenialists make much of Irenaeus claim that Papias was “a hearer of John,” “a companion of Polycarp.” They use this to support their millennial views and suggest that Papias got his Chiliasm directly from the apostle John. Whilst it may well have been Irenaeus’ opinion from reading Papias’ writings that he was personally acquainted with the apostle John, Eusebius provides compelling information that contradicts Irenaeus’s claim that Papias had heard John. He shows (after presenting Irenaeus’ quote) that such a construal is unlikely. In doing this Eusebius actually refers to Papias’ own writing and quotes him directly to prove there is no evidence Papias knew the apostle John.
Eusebius contends: “Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses, that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their friends.”
He then quotes Papias himself: “on any occasion when a person came (in my way) who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the elders -- what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice.”
It is hard not to side with Eusebius here. It seems like Irenaeus’ earnest desire to promote Chiliasm caused him to exaggerate Papias’ connections or influence. The writer himself testifies to having received from those that heard the Apostles but there is nothing to prove he heard them first hand. At best Papias operated on hear-say. By what has survived of his writings we can see the distinct danger of this.
Whilst Irenaeus does his best to connect Papias’ beliefs to Christ and the apostles it is clear that his teaching is from another source. In regard to the source of his teaching, most Bible students will know that the instruction that the vines will produce ten thousand shoots, on ten thousand branches, on ten thousand twigs, on ten thousand clusters, with ten thousand grapes is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Who is right? Where did this really come from?
His teaching was derived from the traditions of Jewish apocalyptic literature. Whilst the Apocalypse of Baruch seems to be the main source, other commentators see the influence of the Book of Enoch and the Jewish oral tradition that eventually found its way into the writings of the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin (Folio 97a). These were very popular Jewish influences at the time of the early church.
In the Apocalypse of Baruch (Point 29:3-5) we find that “it shall come to pass when all is accomplished that was to come to pass in those parts, that the Messiah shall then begin to be revealed …The earth also shall yield its fruit ten-thousandfold and on each vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor of wine.”
The connection can hardly be disputed by the objective student. His teaching is clearly extra-biblical – belonging to apostate Judaism.
George L. Murray states: “Papias did not receive them [his millennial beliefs] from John, but from the Apocalypse of Baruch, a Jewish book, antedating the advent of Christ. The only variation is that where Baruch says a thousand Papias says ten thousand, for he might have reasoned that one was as near the truth as the other. This is sufficient to prove to anyone who will accept proofs that the outstanding premillenarian of the early church actually borrowed his theories from Jewish fables.”
Eusebius is probably correct in exposing this teaching as “unwritten tradition” containing “certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.” It is certainly not Bible-based. Historic Premillennialist G. E. Ladd concedes that the language of Papias and that found in the Apocalypse of Baruch are "words so similar that some sort of interdependence must exist." Ladd concludes "some early Christians elaborated the Christian doctrine of the millennium in light of a similar Jewish doctrine."
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
Those weren't my conclusions, but those of the author of the site I quoted, tho he does build a good case for the pre mill return of Christ.
May I ask if you believe Christ comes before or after the 1000yr period?
Then we will have a base to further discuss this rather controversial issue.
Upvote
0
sovereigngrace
Well-Known Member
- Dec 9, 2019
- 9,042
- 3,450
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That is the problem with the internet. Everyone can be an expert by not putting the necessary work in. What you have been reading was wrong and bias.
I believe Christ is coming after the millennium/Satan's little season.
Upvote
0
sovereigngrace
Well-Known Member
- Dec 9, 2019
- 9,042
- 3,450
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
This thread was started in 2008. Most boards have changed a lot since then. If you were to start a new poll i would guess it would be much different. Premil is on the ropes today. Many have abandoned it through biblical argument.
Upvote
0
Now I know your view and thanks.
The internet is a necessary evil, but it also links us to the world, as also to CF. I respect your view of "after" and will research further on it.
As our Lord Jesus so aptly put it in Luke 12:
Luke 12:51 Ye are supposing that Peace I came to give in the land. Nay! I am saying to ye, but rather division
1 Corinthians 11:18 For foremost indeed of coming together ye in *the assembly[CF] I am hearing schisms in ye to be firstly, and part some I am believing it.
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
sovereigngrace
Well-Known Member
- Dec 9, 2019
- 9,042
- 3,450
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I have been studying the ECFs for about 12 years. It is an enormous task, and if not done carefully can be quite overwhelming and confusing. Many modern non-scholarly books or websites that are written are partial, ignorant and ill-informed. They just repeat what other have speculated before them. They take a quote out of context and apply a modern meaning to an ancient belief in order to support their school of thought.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
