What did the Early Church Fathers write about the return of Christ during 70 AD?

[Erik Nelson]

Joh 5:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

The above spiritual resurrection from the dead has not stopped for those coming into the New Covenant through faith, during our time.

They are saved through His New Covenant sacrifice, at Calvary.

.......................................................

The passage below is speaking of the bodily resurrection, and judgment of the dead found in John 5:27-30. It is the second resurrection found in John chapter 5.


2Ti 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,
2Ti 2:18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.


.

undoing the spiritual demise of Eden?

 

[Erik Nelson]

They most certainly did not predict that the end would come n 500 A.D. They predicted that it would come "in earth's six thousandth year." WE ASSUME they were using the chronology of the Septuagint. And THAT makes their prediction work out to around 500 A.D. But it they were actually using the chronology of the Masoretic text, it works out to 2000 A.D.

if they had been using the Masoretic text, then they would not have acknowledged Jesus as Christ, even as modern Jews do not

according to M, JC could not have been a priest of the order of Melchizedek

 

[Erik Nelson]

Salvation from the penalty from sin came at the cross ......but there were still prophecies left unfulfilled at that point (the vindication of all the blood of the saints, for instance).


To answer the question as to "when"? His focus had been on "saving the lost sheep" from the beginning of Israelite history up the 3 1/2 years after His death (the remaining years of His time dedicated specifically to Daniel's people that had been prophesied). After that - the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles.

This may be considered "the beginning of the last chance" of that time frame:

Acts 2:29- ~
“Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says,

‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’​

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.”

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off—to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

With many other words he testified, and he urged them, “Be saved from this corrupt generation.” Those who embraced his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to the believers that day.f​

They were saved from sin by Jesus' work on the cross - but they'd be "saved from this corrupt generation" by following the instruction and teaching of Christ Jesus' disciples in how to live in the Spirit and to eventually follow the instruction to flee from Jerusalem (which would physically "save" them and preserve the Gospel message).

You're fighting windmills, BABerean.​

there is an early tradition that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem 12 years until the persecution which beheaded James Zebedee and drove Peter into exile c. 42 AD

 

[Erik Nelson]

What are the Dead Sea Scrolls if they aren't the Masoretic text? Seeing how they are nearly verbatim the same Old Testament as we have today.

the LXX was translated in the 3rd century BC from a Hebrew original

the DSS were written from then to the 1st century AD and are close to that Hebrew original underlying the LXX

the M text dates to the 10th century AD and, although deriving from that Hebrew original, is the most unique and different of the lot

 

[The Righterzpen]

the LXX was translated in the 3rd century BC from a Hebrew original

the DSS were written from then to the 1st century AD and are close to that Hebrew original underlying the LXX

the M text dates to the 10th century AD and, although deriving from that Hebrew original, is the most unique and different of the lot

I'm aware that the presentation of the Hebrew has changed over time; yet the examples found in the Dead Sea scrolls are remarkably nearly verbatim similar to the Hebrew Old Testament the church has had through the centuries; and it's my understanding that the "Masoretic text" is the same thing. (Unless there is more than one type of "Masoretic text".)

Now are post Talmud "Masoretic texts" different than the Hebrew from the Christian Old Testament? I suppose that's a possibility? The Talmud was a "back lash" to Christianity (as is Rabbinic Judaism); so it would make sense if subsequent transliterations of the Hebrew had human changes made to them in order to deny Jesus was the Messiah.

Also, obviously transcribing a text as opposed to translating a text are two different animals altogether.

Yet I know the Christian Old Testament text existed when the Latin Vulgate was translated because it is one of the body of texts Jerome used.

So.... I don't know? Is it actually misinformation when we are told the Hebrew used to translate the Christian Old Testament is the same as the "Masoretic text"?

 

[The Righterzpen]

The Masoretic text is a copy of the original Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint is a translation of that Hebrew ext into Greek. So it is indeed scripture, in the same sense that our English Bibles are scripture. But, like all other ancient documents, the various copies we have do not always agree with other. The Talmud is another mattter. It is nothing but human reasonings.

The Septuagint is not Divinely inspired any more than our other translations are; even if they are good translations.

The other "variant" of the Septuagint is that it contains the Apocrypha. Now how much of the Apocrypha it contains, I'm not sure. I don't think Jerome translated the Apocrypha the Eastern Orthodox has (which has some 30 books in it; as opposed to the 15 that are in the RCC Bible). And yet the RCC didn't "canonize" the Apocrypha until after the reformation.

Just looking at Wikipedia; apparently the Septuagint likely has earlier copies that may differ from the oldest ones we have (Codex Vaticanus - The date set for that is about 300 AD) Apparently there's more than just the Apocrypha in the "oldest copy" of the Septuagint we have. There's also a "book of the law" and other Jewish commentary in the Codex Vaticanus. This is the text said that Jerome translated into the Latin Vulgate; yet he omitted the extraneous Greek texts in the Septuagint from the Hebrew manuscripts that he had. None of these extraneous writings were in the Hebrew Old Testaments Jerome had and this was his reason for omitting them.

Now Jerome had access to texts beside the Codex Vaticanus Septuagint. Some of those were early Latin texts, some of them Greek. We know he had access to Alexandrian texts. He makes references the Lucian and Hesychius; which were also "Septuagint" texts (one from Antioch and one from Egypt) which both also contained the New Testament. No mention is made of the Codex Sinaiticus which is suppose to predate Jerome. This was a text allegedly discovered in the 1800's by an English man in a monastery, which makes up a good chuck of the "critical texts" used in current Bible translations. What's it's real age? I'd have to research that.

So, apparently like the "Masoretic text" being more than one variant of Hebrew; there is also more than one "Septuagint".

the words 'the son" in the genesis account are always in italics. That is because they were not in the original text of scripture. If in one case, for some reason, a generation was skipped and the next person named was a grandson, he was still "of" his grandfather.

The word "son" isn't in the Genesis account. The point I made in the variation from Genesis to Luke is that it blows a hole in Ussher's methodology; because obviously there are patriarchs between who's listed in Genesis.

No one can "refute" it because it is unquestionably true. Some have denied it. But a denial is not a refutation.

It's pretty clear through church history; that even for those who were "futurists" they were not "dispensational futurists". The whole thought of some future political restoration of Israel did not exist before Darby allegedly heard this "prophecy" uttered from some bed ridden girl in London.

Prior to the end of WWII; there was extensive animosity between the church and Rabbinic Judaism. That changed with the "holocaust" (Yet there are those of us who question the historical narrative on that which we've been fed for 70 plus years now! The "6 million holocaust" number also comes out of the Talmud and that "6 million Jews killed" number has been floating around newspapers long before there ever was a Nazi in Germany!)

Much of historic animosity between church and Judaism (despite what modern media tells you) was not "anti-Semitism" The Arabs have been accused of "anti-Semitism" too; which is laughable seeing how they are Semites too!

Anyways; that historic animosity was a result of ritual human sacrifice cases that date back into antiquity actually. Pre New Testament Greek historians recorded such events having been committed by Jews; as did the Old Testament actually! There is also a such like account of this referenced in the New Testament in the passage in Luke where Pilate sent soldiers into the temple and "mixed their blood with their own sacrifice". All this type of thing is linked to the Talmud "God loves the blood of Passover and the blood of circumcision."

Also, the historic animosity between church and Judaism is linked to the Talmud and stuff it says about Christ. Like it says He's in hell burning in human excrement. He also allegedly learned sorcery in Egypt and used His penis to cast spells - (according to the authority of the Talmud of course)! The Talmud contains lots of bizarre and gross "human logic".

So no; your assertion of dispensationalism as it currently stands being supported throughout church history is a figment of your imagination.

"Ancient Dispensational Truth," by myself, James C. Morris, (available on Amazon.com) contains 139 pages of documentation of this.

Do you have a PDF version of your sources, so I can check them?

 

[Erik Nelson]

I'm aware that the presentation of the Hebrew has changed over time; yet the examples found in the Dead Sea scrolls are remarkably nearly verbatim similar to the Hebrew Old Testament the church has had through the centuries; and it's my understanding that the "Masoretic text" is the same thing. (Unless there is more than one type of "Masoretic text".)

Now are post Talmud "Masoretic texts" different than the Hebrew from the Christian Old Testament? I suppose that's a possibility? The Talmud was a "back lash" to Christianity (as is Rabbinic Judaism); so it would make sense if subsequent transliterations of the Hebrew had human changes made to them in order to deny Jesus was the Messiah.

Also, obviously transcribing a text as opposed to translating a text are two different animals altogether.

Yet I know the Christian Old Testament text existed when the Latin Vulgate was translated because it is one of the body of texts Jerome used.

So.... I don't know? Is it actually misinformation when we are told the Hebrew used to translate the Christian Old Testament is the same as the "Masoretic text"?

well, all versions agree 99%

we're talking very minor variations overall

but the NT in quoting favors the LXX against the M 2/3rds of the time, and only agrees with the M against the LXX 5% of the time, or something like that

I guess the quoted passages are the same in both the rest of the time

think that shows us how the minor differences are distributed... They're concentrated in the very messianic verses that the Christian NT relies on to promote Jesus as the Christ messiah

according to the rabbinical experts, the M versions prove Jesus was not the messiah, and that instead the modern nation of Israel is

whereas the LXX is consistent with Jesus as Christ and would presumably apply all corporate messianic references to spiritual Israel = Church instead of physical national Israel

(by human ethnicity [reflecting past unalterable promises] or by divine choice & intervention in the present?)

 

[BABerean2]

I'm not sure what posts you're considering "profane and idle babbling" but I believe you're misunderstanding what's being said.

There are people on this forum who claim we are now living in the New Heavens, and the New Earth.

Are they are promoting the same error as Hymenaeus and Philetus?

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There are people on this forum who claim we are now living in the New Heavens, and the New Earth.

Are they are promoting the same error as Hymenaeus and Philetus?
.

Make a thread on it.................

I have 3 active threads on it for those interested.........2 from a PP and Amill view, and the 3rd on the CT board............

A-Mil Only - Amill views on the New Heaven and Earth in Bible

Partial Preterist Only - What are the Partial Preterists view of the New Heaven and Earth in the Bible

Views on the New Heaven/s and Earth mentioned in OT and NT
CCT board...............
============================
This is another thread.......

Isaiah 65 The Eternal New Heaven And Earth

Isaiah 65:17-19 is the same "Eternal Kingdom" as seen in Revelation 21:1-4 below.

"The New Heaven And Earth"

Many try to pass off that Isaiah 65 represents a kingdom on this earth for 1000 years?

Revelation 21:1-4 below does a good job at exposing this false teaching!

Isaiah 65:17-19KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Revelation 21:1-4KJV
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

[BABerean2]

Make a thread on it.................

We do not need to make a new thread on every question that comes up in this thread.


.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for staff review and clean up. AS a reminder, Full preterism cannot be promoted in this forum. That includes linking to full preterism sites and quoting full preterists.

​

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON​

After Staff Review

Thread is Now
Permanently Closed
Re: Full Preterism cannot be promoted in this Forun.

MOD HAT OFF​