Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is no way you can make Scripture say this, but you have every right to believe that if you want to and I respect that.
Yes.
This is where one must study, dig deep into history, be willing to accept truth and put aside wrong ideas and allow God to remake them. First you must find where that truth is.
You must find what the early christians believed, how they lived, practiced their faith, how the worshipped. This led me into the arms of the Catholic Church against all my protestations.
We are not so much concerned with the end times "events" other than in a very general sense. Each of our own personal end time event could come at any moment and THAT is what should occupy our attention.
And I answered your second question already.
OKAre you willing to learn what we really teach and believe?
I'm not saying Jesus lied. . but if someone says the apostles did not receive the all truth promised, then, by direct implication, they are saying Jesus lied.
If Jesus did not lie, then ALL TRUTH was given to the Apostles which means ALL of it was revealed to them, so nothing more is left to be revealed.
Can you tell me this. If John was the last Apostle to die, and he alone received the Revelation of Jesus Christ, how does that affect the "all truth" position you hold, given that the disciples that died before him didn't receive that?
You're over-selling it. Chiliasm was popular in the first few centuries, but it wasn't the view. We do find it in the writings of Fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Justin; not so much Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Even St. Justin, a Chiliast himself, says this in the Dialogue:
"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch 80
Chiliasm and Amillennialism happily coexisted within the early centuries of the Church.
What the Fathers confess is that we shall be gathered to Christ at His coming. As this is what St. Paul says in his first epistle to the Thessalonians. What they never mention is the modern notion that Christians will be beamed up into heaven. Even Chiliasts such as Justin and Irenaeus are clear that they expect the Church to be present, to face the rage of Antichrist. E.g.:
"It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight." - Against Heresies, V.26.1
The problem is that there doesn't exist anything substantial to support this notion. The usual offerings from Irenaeus and Pseudo-Ephaem don't stand up to the barest amount of scrutiny. The usual quote from Irenaeus is twisted and ripped from the entirety of what he suggests--including the above mentioned where he understands the Church to be present, enduring through Antichrist's reign. The problem with Pseudo-Ephraem is even greater, primarily because the authentic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem looks nothing like the Latin-to-English translation floating around the internet by Cameron Rhoades.
What all the Gospels are rather clear on is that our Lord prophesied the destruction of the Jerusalem which took place in the year 70, and that when He came it would be an unexpected and obvious thing. It will be as lightning flashing from east to west. There will be no doubts, no second guesses, no beaming of Christians into heaven to be followed by a seven year tribulation. When our Lord comes, it is in the glory of God the Father to judge the living and the dead. Otherwise it makes no sense for our Lord, in St. John's Gospel, to say explicitly that He will raise us up on the Last Day. Likewise, it makes no sense to hear what the Apostle says in his epistles, such as to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15, or to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 4. The resurrection of the dead happens at the Parousia, and not a moment sooner--this same Parousia which means the subjection of all things to the Father.
-CryptoLutheran
That text IS about chiliasm. That you even question this leads me to wonder if you have ever even read his Dialogue with Trypho.
"CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT"
That's what Justin Martyr is talking about Hentenza. . The text is about chiliasm, his beliefs, and stating it is not the view of many others - that thre are many who are of pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, who think otherwise.
Why are you ignoring the plain words of Justin Martyr which clearly demonstrate the Church was not chiliast, just that some were and it was not in any way, shape or form, agreed with or accepted in the Church as a whole? And this in the second century?
Is that a jab?
The only thing that the passage demonstrates is that there were some that disagreed. What the passage does not tell us is who or what they believed.
You are the one assuming that it must be amil but that would be importing your bias into the text.
In fact, many in the early church disagreed with some of the apostolic teachings and went on to form cults such as the ones described by Irenaeus in Against Heresies.
Now, can you show any ECF prior to the 3rd century that taught amil? You need positive evidence here TLF. Opinion does not count.
Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
I'm not saying Jesus lied. . but if someone says the apostles did not receive the all truth promised, then, by direct implication, they are saying Jesus lied.
If Jesus did not lie, then ALL TRUTH was given to the Apostles which means ALL of it was revealed to them, so nothing more is left to be revealed.
Indeed!Can you tell me this.
If John was the last Apostle to die, and he alone received the Revelation of Jesus Christ, how does that affect the "all truth" position you hold, given that the disciples that died before him didn't receive that?
I am simply surprised that someone from your background would not have known that.
There were MANY who did not agree who were faithful, holy christians. It does not matter WHAT they believed just that they did not believe in the chiliast system of explaining eschatological beliefs.
The claim you made was that the Church was chiliast.
The Church had no official teaching that was chiliast, and additonially, MANY did not believe chiliast beliefs.
So the Church cannot in any way be said in any way to have been Chiliast logically speaking.
The evidence to support such a claim is not there and the evidence that IS there demonstrates the exact opposite.
To paint the beliefs of some with such a wide and indescriminating brush in order to make it appear it was the Church as a whole that held this belief, when it is obvious on it's face to anyone who makes an honest read of the document presented as "proof", that there was no agreement at all on the matter, really begs the question why would you try to make such a claim when a simple and honest intellectual investigation so quickly and amply disproves it?
Did I say anything about amillenialism?
I don't need to prove anything beyond the fact that the Church was not chiliast contrary to your claim.
I did know it. I just did not know where you were going with it.
Are you saying that if ONE or two disagree, since we have no count given by Justin, then the claim that the church was chiliast is incorrect?
I think you are stretching your argument here.
Many in the early church believed that Jesus was deity but several groups did not, did that make the church not Trinitarian? I don't think so. My statement that the church was chiliast merely expresses that the predominant teaching of the Church prior to the 3rd century was chiliasm just as the church was Trinitarian because the predominant teaching was Trinitarian.
Again, can you show an ECF prior to the 3rd century that was not chiliast?
Chiliasm - The doctrine stating that Jesus will reign on earth for 1,000 years.
Ohhhhh that chiliasm .. yepps . chili willi as Jesus said .. willi was a day .. chilli was a night oh wait peter said that . lol .
Do I need to post the Trolololo guy again?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?