More about eschatology and preterism...

[David Kent]

Daniel 11:31 (not 11:34 as indicated above). It should be clear that there are multiple fulfilments of this prophesy. One in the time of Antiochus, one in AD 70 and one just before the Return of Christ. The latter abomination will perhaps make illegal the sacrifice of Romans 12:1.

I cannot agree with you there Bro. There was only one fulfilment and that was by the Romans.

• Mark13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

One abomination. It happened in AD 66-70

 

[Covenanter]

Sorry to repost from pages 5 & 6 of a 10 page thread, but John's citations are presumably the strongest support available for ECF chilliasm teaching before the year 200.

The citations are in no way convincing of a millennium after Jesus returns.

--------------

The Barnabas epistle (c. 130) does speak of a 1,000 year Sabbath day of rest, followed by the 8th day beginning another world, but it seems as all the judgments etc take place at the Son's coming after the 6 days, 6,000 years.

Seems as if it took time for premil doctrine to be developed, &not from Scripture.

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 he 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 15:8
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.

 

[agedman]

I suppose what concerns me in this thread is the assumption that (in the poster’s view) the early church did not teach a millennium, there is no offer of proof (in their view) of what was taught.

It seems such is attempting to prove a negative by the absence of a positive.

As A student working manually through data, the pattern was that teachers/preachers/priests/... generally spoke about issues of concern for that time. Various issues of the apostles’ teaching were highlighted as circumstances and error were addressed.

As such, the early written accounts do not contain ALL taught, but glimpses of the teaching (as has been shown) were pre-mil based. No other “scheme” was put forward until nearer the time of Augustine.

In our modern time, events have occurred that draw public attention to last days, and in the effort to be original there are some who advance views that more often call into question the validity of Scripture statements.

One of the most called into question is the millennial reign of Christ.

The opponents, of taking such as factually going to occur, basically call into question the validity of the scriptures as written, yet, not one would doubt a Scripture specificallly fulfilled at the first coming. That just doesn’t hold consistency.

This post is opinion sharing, only.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I cannot agree with you there Bro. There was only one fulfilment and that was by the Romans.

• Mark13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

One abomination. It happened in AD 66-70

Well David, I think you need to read the whole of Daniel 11 with a good commentary, and it will tell you that the events described fit very well with the period leading up to Antiochus Epiphanes and not with the events of AD 69-70.
When Matthew says, 'Whoever reads, let him understand,' he is saying that the reader of Daniel must understand that there is another fulfilment.

It is unwise to read too much into the use of the Definite Article in koine Greek. I think (hope!) that the Greek experts on the board will back me up.

 

[agedman]

Well David, I think you need to read the whole of Daniel 11 with a good commentary, and it will tell you that the events described fit very well with the period leading up to Antiochus Epiphanes and not with the events of AD 69-70.
When Matthew says, 'Whoever reads, let him understand,' he is saying that the reader of Daniel must understand that there is another fulfilment.

It is unwise to read too much into the use of the Definite Article in koine Greek. I think (hope!) that the Greek experts on the board will back me up.

I agree, Martin.

The whole breakup of Alexander’s empire, the rise and fall of different authorities, and the events expressed in Daniel can certainly be far better shown with consistency then with an AD view.

The “Christian Courier” (a church of Christ publication) has a rather interesting article on this matter. It can be read here: Daniel's Prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes

Disclaimer: I am not a supporter of some Church of Christ teaching. What is offered here is for review and comment, only.

 

[David Kent]

Sorry to repost from pages 5 & 6 of a 10 page thread, but John's citations are presumably the strongest support available for ECF chilliasm teaching before the year 200.

The citations are in no way convincing of a millennium after Jesus returns.

--------------

The Barnabas epistle (c. 130) does speak of a 1,000 year Sabbath day of rest, followed by the 8th day beginning another world, but it seems as all the judgments etc take place at the Son's coming after the 6 days, 6,000 years.

Seems as if it took time for premil doctrine to be developed, &not from Scripture.

I have just been reading an extract from on Amazon. The Final Prophecy of Jesus: Rather expensive at $62. Interesting he demolishes the idea of an early date for the Revelation and mentions Papias ca AD 100 as the earliest. Pre mil was most common theory, til Constantine

They overwhelmingly considered that the emperor and the empire were the let and hindrance.

 

[Covenanter]

I have just been reading an extract from on Amazon. The Final Prophecy of Jesus: Rather expensive at $62. Interesting he demolishes the idea of an early date for the Revelation and mentions Papias ca AD 100 as the earliest. Pre mil was most common theory, til Constantine

They overwhelmingly considered that the emperor and the empire were the let and hindrance.

Sorry David, but that post isn't worth £1 let alone $62 - somebody's opinion & no Scripture. And no link if you want someone to look it up.

 

[agedman]

One of the more puzzling aspects of this discussion is the early date thinking.

When historical evidence shows the date of John’s time on Patmos, the date of the emperor death that coincides with release of political prisoners, and the previous lack of mention by either Paul or Peter of the Revelation letter to the churches. These were churches started by Paul, why would he not have reacted unless he were already dead?

 

[David Kent]

Sorry David, but that post isn't worth £1 let alone $62 - somebody's opinion & no Scripture. And no link if you want someone to look it up.

You can read a preview of the first part if you click on the picture and follow the link.

 

[David Kent]

One of the more puzzling aspects of this discussion is the early date thinking.

When historical evidence shows the date of John’s time on Patmos, the date of the emperor death that coincides with release of political prisoners, and the previous lack of mention by either Paul or Peter of the Revelation letter to the churches. These were churches started by Paul, why would he not have reacted unless he were already dead?

I don't know where they get the dates from. But the date of 2 Peter given in the margin of my KJV is AD 66. which is about the beginning of the Jewish war. I don't go much on the dates given in the margins, but IF it is accurate that makes it some years after the supposed date of the Revelation.

But it seems it was common knowledge among the churches, when John was exiled probably briefly. No early writer I have seen quoted says any different.

 

[agedman]

I don't know where they get the dates from. But the date of 2 Peter given in the margin of my KJV is AD 66. which is about the beginning of the Jewish war. I don't go much on the dates given in the margins, but IF it is accurate that makes it some years after the supposed date of the Revelation.

But it seems it was common knowledge among the churches, when John was exiled probably briefly. No early writer I have seen quoted says any different.

John’s exile lasted until the end of the emperors’ rule at approx 95-6AD.

The Revelation was written on the island, and the letters more than likely were distributed to the seven named churches as soon as mail was gotten off the island, or when John got off after 95-6AD.

Therefore the date of the writing of the Revelation must be during the last decade of the 1st century, and cannot be assigned any earlier date.

John’s stay on Patmos does not allow earlier dating, and he was only on the island once.

 

[Covenanter]

I suppose what concerns me in this thread is the assumption that (in the poster’s view) the early church did not teach a millennium, there is no offer of proof (in their view) of what was taught.

It seems such is attempting to prove a negative by the absence of a positive.

See my post #40 regarding John's link -

Thanks for the article. It seems to rely on the circular argument that John (Apostle) taught the premil doctrine (which I would question); that Polycarp & Papias knew John personally; that Irenaeus refers to P & P as premil (without quoting their writings) therefore they held premil doctrine as taught by John.

It seems too that the writer thinks John's supposed millennial teaching overrides Paul's eschatological teaching, even though he admits that -
Ignatius ..... throughout his epistles suggest(s) an eschatology more Pauline than Johannine .....

As A student working manually through data, the pattern was that teachers/preachers/priests/... generally spoke about issues of concern for that time. Various issues of the apostles’ teaching were highlighted as circumstances and error were addressed.

As such, the early written accounts do not contain ALL taught, but glimpses of the teaching (as has been shown) were pre-mil based. No other “scheme” was put forward until nearer the time of Augustine.

In our modern time, events have occurred that draw public attention to last days, and in the effort to be original there are some who advance views that more often call into question the validity of Scripture statements.

One of the most called into question is the millennial reign of Christ.

The opponents, of taking such as factually going to occur, basically call into question the validity of the scriptures as written, yet, not one would doubt a Scripture specificallly fulfilled at the first coming. That just doesn’t hold consistency.

This post is opinion sharing, only.

As far as I can see John's quotes of Polycarp & Clement, supposedly in support of the millennium, say nothing about a millennium.

I appreciate your opinion sharing - it is helpful when posters show their reasoning. I try.

 

[Covenanter]

One of the more puzzling aspects of this discussion is the early date thinking.

When historical evidence shows the date of John’s time on Patmos, the date of the emperor death that coincides with release of political prisoners, and the previous lack of mention by either Paul or Peter of the Revelation letter to the churches. These were churches started by Paul, why would he not have reacted unless he were already dead?

The opening verses of Revelation indicate that the events prophesied would take place shortly, for the time was at hand. Also the temple & Jerusalem are spoken of in Rev. 11. A 90s date doesn't fit.

The NT letter writers mention other writers, particularly deceivers. If John was writing when Paul was in Rome, Paul could be unaware of his visions - & possibly already dead.

Peter endorses Paul's letter, & may be referring to John's thousand years - an indefinite time allowed for repentance that ends when Jesus comes to establish a NH&NE. Peter considers the scoffers who question Jesus' prophecy of his coming - that would be the Olivet prophecy. take warning from the flood, & the certainty of the final day of the Lord. The scoffers of this generation would suffer swift damnation.

IMO Scripture endorses an early date, even if secular data suggest otherwise.

 

[agedman]

...

I appreciate your opinion sharing - it is helpful when posters show their reasoning. I try.

This is not a challenge, but a question in att3mpt to understand.

First background.

Throughout my schooling in both Baptist supported universities, then as I would occasionally bump into department heads (amill was the prevailing wind at the time) they never really would give a reason for dismissing the millennium, but inevitably agreed with the second coming.

They would often wax very biblically about the events of the second coming, and likewise about the final judgment and eternity.

Yet, when ask why they refused to take the same area of Scripture as authoritatively considering the millennium (although in the exact same book and the exact same passages) they would avoid and more often consider my question as one unlearned, or not having studied the mater enough, or a childishness which even Augustine out grew.

So, I put the question to you.


You seem to hold as factual the statements concerning the Lord’s return, and concerning the final judgment.

Why then not take that same area of Scripture as factual concerning the millennium?

Just so you don’t use the uniformed argument that such an account occurs no where else in Scripture, I also find the millennium in the response of the psalmist that cannot be appointed to this time nor that of eternity, and the prophetic statements the same.

Again, this really isn’t a challenge as much as it is attempting to understand the actual thinking processes.

 

[agedman]

The opening verses of Revelation indicate that the events prophesied would take place shortly, for the time was at hand. Also the temple & Jerusalem are spoken of in Rev. 11. A 90s date doesn't fit.

The NT letter writers mention other writers, particularly deceivers. If John was writing when Paul was in Rome, Paul could be unaware of his visions - & possibly already dead.

Peter endorses Paul's letter, & may be referring to John's thousand years - an indefinite time allowed for repentance that ends when Jesus comes to establish a NH&NE. Peter considers the scoffers who question Jesus' prophecy of his coming - that would be the Olivet prophecy. take warning from the flood, & the certainty of the final day of the Lord. The scoffers of this generation would suffer swift damnation.

IMO Scripture endorses an early date, even if secular data suggest otherwise.

The difficulty is that your response would show you think this is Herod’s temple complex. It is not.

The temple measurements given in Ezekiel’s prophecy does not fit any temple construction to date.

The prophets do certainly tell of a yet future temple, one that WILL be part of Rev. 11.

Do you not see the two witnesses laying dead in the street while the world rejoices and Satan gains total control over the temple?

At what time in history we’re exactly 7000 killed by the earthquake in Jerusalem following two dead witnesses witnessed by the world coming alive and carried up into the clouds?

What other time in history could events of Jerusalem be live streamed around the world?

None.

The Rev. 11 is the future temple my Rabbi friend told me decades ago was being prepared and material lists being made.

 

[prophecy70]

The difficulty is that your response would show you think this is Herod’s temple complex. It is not.

The temple measurements given in Ezekiel’s prophecy does not fit any temple construction to date.

The prophets do certainly tell of a yet future temple, one that WILL be part of Rev. 11.

Do you not see the two witnesses laying dead in the street while the world rejoices and Satan gains total control over the temple?

At what time in history we’re exactly 7000 killed by the earthquake in Jerusalem following two dead witnesses witnessed by the world coming alive and carried up into the clouds?

What other time in history could events of Jerusalem be live streamed around the world?

None.

The Rev. 11 is the future temple my Rabbi friend told me decades ago was being prepared and material lists being made.

So what happens to the dome of the rock?

 

[agedman]

So what happens to the dome of the rock?

I don’t care.

We aren’t speculating about heathen worship places, only relating prophecy

 

[prophecy70]

I don’t care.

We aren’t speculating about heathen worship places, only relating prophecy

But if the future temple is written, then the second coming can't be close in your opinion.

 

[agedman]

But if the future temple is written, then the second coming can't be close in your opinion.

How long would you consider it would take modern craftsman with modern technology to build The Temple within the demensions of Ezekiel? Perhaps less than a year?

Why would you see any Scripture conflict in the temple being constructed and in use during the tribulation?

 

[prophecy70]

How long would you consider it would take modern craftsman with modern technology to build The Temple within the demensions of Ezekiel? Perhaps less than a year?

Why would you see any Scripture conflict in the temple being constructed and in use during the tribulation?

I don't see the waqf bending over anytime soon. I believe Jewish rabbi's true to the law would never allow modern tooling on the site of the temple Mount. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one. And also the dome of the rock would have to come down. Nothing unclean can be that close to the temple.

Anyways there is not a verse in the Bible calling for a third temple. Until one is provided and not just implied. I do not see a need a third temple that would just be more rejection of Jesus.