The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

Raise a white flag? What do you think this is--a war? ;) No, your tainted claims are filled with problems. I've pointed them out for others--I know you are unable to adapt.

Chiliasm and Premil obviously have a major element in common that defines them. That is a truism--not an admission. Saying other peripheral ideas like belief in the restoration of Israel is not an essential element in your effort to separate Chiliasm and Modern Premil based on their supposedly "heretical origins." It has always been difficult to accept the restoration of Israel when God called Israel's covenant with Himself a "divorce!"

Other peripheral elements are arguments from silence, and not an admission that Premil of any kind is based on early Premil heretics. You are dead wrong on that, and I mean that!

Porphyry/Porphyrius

Porphyrius is another heretic who promoted the Premillennial doctrine. He was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and held views that were in conflict with the more-moderate classic early Chiliasm. He was another Judaizer who tried to foist old covenant practices upon New Testament Christianity. He also promoted the full return of the old covenant ceremonial law and festivals.

Jerome strongly refuted him, and exposed his error:

[T]he blasphemer Porphyrius – and who assert that the ceremonies of the old Law should be observed in the Church of Christ by the stock of faithful Israel, those should also look forward to a golden Jerusalem for 1000 years, that they may offer sacrifices and be circumcised, that they may sit on the Sabbath, sleep, become sated, drunk, and to rise to frolic, their amusement being offensive to God (Commentary to Isaiah, Chapter XXIV).​

Jerome was not painting all Chiliasts with the same brush. Quite the opposite! He was specifically exposing this early heretical Premillennialist who advocated the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement in a future thousand years, including the pointless slaughter of countless innocent animals during that period. This was not an opinion that orthodox Chiliasts held, taught or accepted anywhere throughout the early Church.

All of these Premil heretics were notably professing Gentile "Christians" who were besotted with Old Testament Israel and its ancient practices. Consequently, they tried to create a theological system that would accommodate their distorted view of Christianity and Judaism. They achieved this by creating parallel train-tracks that could accommodate the coexistence and co-acceptance of two diverse religious systems in a dual covenant theology. This is exactly what Dispensationalism has done today. It is fixated with natural Israel, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the return of animal sacrifices in some supposed future millennium and the restarting of the abolished old covenant priesthood. They have invented two peoples of God to suit its theology.

The heretics believed that their hopes would be finally realized after the second coming, in an earthly messianic kingdom, one in which Israel would be brought back to its ancient favored position reigning over the Gentile nations from old Jerusalem. This new arrangement would see Gentiles submitting to the long-abolished primitive old covenant customs, rules and ceremonies. Ancient Jerusalem would become the center-point once again of global worship to Israel’s God. This age would last a thousand years and would see the full return of all Old Testament religious structure, including priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping.

Porphyrius wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel. Jerome strongly refuted his teaching point by point. Speaking about Daniel 2.40 (“He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth”), he responded:

Now the fourth empire, which clearly refers to the Romans, is the iron empire which breaks in pieces and overcomes all others. But its feet and toes are partly of iron and partly of earthenware, a fact most clearly demonstrated at the present time. For just as there was at the first nothing stronger or hardier than the Roman realm, so also in these last days there is nothing more feeble, since we require the assistance of barbarian tribes both in our civil wars and against foreign nations. However, at the final period of all these empires of gold and silver and bronze and iron, a rock (namely, the Lord and Savior) was cut off without hands, that is, without copulation or human seed and by birth from a virgin's womb; and after all the empires had been crushed, He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever.
This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever (Commentary on Daniel, Prologue, on Daniel 2.40).​

According to Jerome: Porphyrius expected the restoration of natural Israel to its old covenant place of favor over all other nations in the last of the last days. Israel would then subjugate the Gentile nations and rule over them. He anticipates a superior position for ethnic Israel above all nations, with them exercising “the strongest power” over them.

Porphyry cuts across the widespread belief amongst the ECFs (Chiliast and early Amils) that the New Testament persistently teaches that under the new covenant, and in Christ Jesus, all nationalities equally partake of the spiritual blessings God promised to that nation through faith. Basically: Jews and Gentiles are equal before God. The whole notion of ethnicity deserving some type of special favor with God in our day is repeatedly and strongly blown out of the water in the early Christian writers.

 

[WPM]

Raise a white flag? What do you think this is--a war? ;) No, your tainted claims are filled with problems. I've pointed them out for others--I know you are unable to adapt.

Chiliasm and Premil obviously have a major element in common that defines them. That is a truism--not an admission. Saying other peripheral ideas like belief in the restoration of Israel is not an essential element in your effort to separate Chiliasm and Modern Premil based on their supposedly "heretical origins." It has always been difficult to accept the restoration of Israel when God called Israel's covenant with Himself a "divorce!"

Other peripheral elements are arguments from silence, and not an admission that Premil of any kind is based on early Premil heretics. You are dead wrong on that, and I mean that!

Apollinarius of Laodicea

Apollinarius took up the ancient Premillennial baton from these early heretics. Notably, he too was a prominent heretic who was strongly opposed and renounced by the universal Church of his day. Very little of what he wrote has been passed down to us. Most of it was destroyed as heretical. Most of what we have comes from his theological opponents who were strong in their renunciations.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa said of Apollinarius of Laodicea, that his theology taught that “the Jewish animal-sacrifices shall be restored” (Dogmatic Treatises, Etc.; Letter XVII – To Eustathia).

Basil the Great describes what Apollinarius believed

Apollinarius [of Laodicea], who is no less a cause of sorrow to the Churches. With his facility of writing, and a tongue ready to argue on any subject, he has filled the world with his works ... What he writes on theology is not founded on Scripture, but on human reasonings. He has written about the resurrection, from a mythical, or rather Jewish, point of view; urging that we shall return again to the worship of the Law, be circumcised, keep the Sabbath, abstain from meats, offer sacrifices to God, worship in the Temple at Jerusalem, and be altogether turned from Christians into Jews. What could be more ridiculous? Or, rather, what could be more contrary to the doctrines of the Gospel? (Letters and Select Works: Letter 263, 4 - To the Westerns).​

Here is an outline of classic Premillennial teaching. Again, noticeably, this was held by an early heretic who was strongly resisted by the orthodox Christian Church. This was foreign teaching to them in the light of what Christ ushered in through the new covenant. Apollinarius taught that Israel would be restored to her previous old covenant place for preference over all other nations.

But, most troubling to the early writers, was the early Premillennial promotion of the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. This was despite the well-established beliefs of the Patristic writers that the New Testament Scripture makes clear that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 12, 14 and 1 Peter 3:18) and that there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:18, 26 and 1 John 3:5).

Apollinarianism was condemned by a council at Alexandria in 362 A.D. at Roman councils in 377 A.D. and 378 A.D. In the second Ecumenical Council and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD the Church leaders renounced Apollinarius as a heretic. He is actually repudiated by name in Canon 1 and Canon 7. Along with his other fellow heretics he was to be “anathematized.”

Gregory the Theologian also criticized Apollinarius in his letter to Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius (Epistle CI. (101), highlighting his Premillennial beliefs.

I would they were even cut off that trouble you, and would reintroduce a second Judaism, and a second circumcision, and a second system of sacrifices. For if this be done, what hinders Christ also being born again to set them aside, and again being betrayed by Judas, and crucified and buried, and rising again, that all may be fulfilled in the same order, like the Greek system of cycles, in which the same revolutions of the stars bring round the same events.​

Jerome targets the theology of the early Premillennial heretics, mentioning Apollinaris in particular in his renunciation:

Dionysius the bishop of the church of Alexandria, wrote a fine book mocking the tale of the millennium, as well as the golden and bejeweled earthly Jerusalem, the restoration of the temple, the blood of sacrifices, the idleness of the sabbath, the injury of circumcision, nuptials, child birth, child-rearing, the delights of feasting, and the servitude of all nations, and once again wars, armies, and triumphs, and the slaughter of the vanquished, and the death of the hundred-year-old sinner. Apollinaris responded to him in two volumes, and he is followed not only by men of his own sect, but also by a great multitude of our own, at least in this matter, so that I already perceive with foreboding that the anger of many will be aroused against me (Commentary to Isaiah, Preface to Book 18).​

For Jerome, the Premillennial scheme was “a tale.” Others would similarly call it “a fable.” The idea of a future age in-between “this age” and “the age to come” was quite fanciful to many of the early Amil writers. When the detail of the heretical Premillennialist heretics were threw into the mix, with their expectation of more ongoing sin, more decay, more sickness, more death, more sin offerings, etc, etc, it was hardly surprising that many found this far-fetched. When you add all the religious actors that populate the millennium and give their feigned allegiance to Christ and then turn on Him when Satan appears 1000 years after the second coming, then you are looking at a doctrine that seems beyond the pale of reality and truth. When they then argued that a future earth will see the mortal wicked interact with the glorified saints for a thousand years then you are looking at a clear non-corroborative doctrine.

In an article Jerome’s Judaizers, Hillel I. Newman argues: “So far as we know, none of these authors maintained hopefully that in the millennial kingdom all would offer sacrifices and keep the sabbath and that all men would be circumcised.”

Premil Lyford Paterson Edwards even concedes: “we see the unfortunate fate of Chiliasm in getting mixed up with heresies with which it, as such, had nothing to do. The extraordinary detestation which overtook Apollinaris as arch-heretic par excellence seems to have finally discouraged Chiliasm in the Eastern Church. It was reckoned as a heresy thereafter and though it appears sporadically down to our own day it is of no more interest for our purpose” (The Transformation of Early Christianity from an Eschatological to a Socialized Movement).

The later Jacobite bishop of Dara, in Mesopotamia (d. 845), John of Dara exposes Apollonarius for his millennialist teaching:

Apollonarius the heretic, with his companions, abandoned the glorious illumination of the living words and became blind to the faith like the Jews. He dared to speak, like the Pharisees, that after the resurrection of the dead, we shall live again for a thousand years in Jerusalem with the Messiah, with bodily pleasures, and childish sacrifices, and earthly libations before him [the Messiah?]. After these things are fulfilled, at that time we shall be taken up into heaven. And he was not shamed by the voice of Paul who said, “The kingdom of God is not of eating or drinking. But of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Also in like manner Irenaeus bishop of Lyon in Gaul wandered in these matters, which are in the book of Papias as Eusebius narrates (On the Resurrection of Bodies 2.13).​

John of Dara likens Apollonarius’ Premillennialism to Phariseeism. He rubbishes the idea of Judaic temple ceremonial in Jerusalem for a thousand years in front of the Messiah.

These ancient heretical Premillennialists fell into the same trap as the Pharisees with their faulty hyper-literal mind-set, who because of such, ended up crucifying Christ. The problem was, they were stuck in the Old Testament, fixated with the earthly, physical, temporal and the natural. These ancient writers focused in on Israel and a temporal future earthly kingdom full of warfare, carnal pleasures and ethnic separation. They promise a continuation of pain, sin, death, suffering, tears, hatred, war, funerals. This whole carnal expectation seems to blue the reason why the second coming is so splendid. It is the final return of Christ in all power and glory to abolish all unrighteousness and to set up a perfect, just and eternal kingdom where wickedness and corruption are forbidden.

 

[Randy Kluth]

1. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described sin existing on a future millennial earth?

I've already answered this. Sin is part of the definition of who Man is, and Man is not expunged from a planet that has not been annihilated. The Kingdom of Messiah enforces a sinful planet to obey his rule. And the glorified saints are said to join him in this rule, after the 2nd Coming. The implication, if there is a world to be subdued, is that it is "sinful." It is, in fact, a synonym, for sin!

Characterizing the Millennial Age is not to be our major concern, as Jesus indicated, which is why there is a dearth of information on this in the Early Church. We simply aren't given many details from the Lord Himself! So your focus is off the beaten path, and majoring on a minor.

No early Chiliast cared to characterize the Millennial Age as "evil" for the simple reason that they rightly focused on the present hope of the Church, which is to be glorified at that time in a sin-free perfect environment. The earth, which is ruled over during that time, will obviously not be perfect yet--not until the New Earth arrives at the end of the Millennium.

Since the early Chiliasts believed the literal version of the Millennium, this had to have been their position, whether they spelled it out for you or not! They believed the Kingdom or Messianic Age would last a literal thousand years, after which the world will be finally purged of all sin and evil.

Satan would be bound throughout the thousand years, and then deposited forever into the Lake of Fire. His final judgment actually begins at the Return of Christ, but it is consummated in his complete disposal after the thousand years.

But you've now heard this a number of times, and you just wish to continue to pose the same questions as if they haven't been answered. At some point I will ignore you.

 

[WPM]

As I said, I'm speculating. It appears *to me* that this is talking about the Battle of Armageddon, and not their tenure with the Beast. At the time John wrote this, they had not yet received imperial status together with the Beast. That comes in the "latter times."

Your doctrine forces you to come out with some ridiculous claims. You are explaining away the wording of Scriptures to support your absurd claims. This is your pattern. I am sure Premils often cringe at your ridiculous claims.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I know you are extremely uncomfortable with it, but the evidence of history shows the founders of modern Premil were all heretics. You have no rebuttal to that.

Uncomfortable with it? It's a lie, a slander! You are using arguments by later Amil Church Fathers, who wished to quash the Chliasts by using these kinds of tactics. But they are illegitimate, particularly as we look back from our own time frame. The Chiliasts could hardly defend themselves at a time when Amil took prominence. But I can say with certainty that they rejected the early Premiil heretics. End of argument.

 

[WPM]

Replacement Theology rejects the restoration of national Israel in the Millennium. What about this don't you understand?

Amils believe that the International Church, which presently includes a remnant of Israelis, is the fulfillment of promises made specifically and exclusively to ethnic Israel. Some promises made to Israel may also apply to the international Church, such as the promise of an eternal inheritance, given to Abraham. But some promises applied only to Israel, and applying these promises to the international Church "replaces" Israel's hope with a hope applied to a completely different set of people, the international Church.

This is a strawman argument because it intentionally misrepresents the argument of their opponents in order to make it easier to discredit it. It involves a picture being presented that doesn’t accurately reflect the beliefs of the one you are debating. By exaggerating, distorting, or fabricating someone’s position, it makes it much easier to present your own position as plausible and logical. But this type of underhand tactic only serves to prevent open, honest, profitable, rational and objective discussion.

The teaching of the Church for most of its history has rejected the idea that there is any theologically distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ during the new covenant era. They believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start. These believers do not claim to hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Remnant Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Expansion Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. Regardless of which one of these phrases is preferred, its advocates believe that the New Testament Church (assembly) is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same.

You have previously admitted this, saying:

"Yes, what Israel had has now been passed on to many European and other nations. But I still believe that Israel will be restored, just as European nations are presently falling and will have to be restored.

So the kingdom of priests given to Israel has been given to many nations. And that is a fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham. And that also is where we see Abraham's promises fulfilled in Rev 20. They are those who participate in the 1st resurrection, if they had already become Christians."​

It is actually you who is the true Replacement Theology holder. In your theology “the Christian nations” (whoever they are) have replaced natural Israel as theocracies. This is erroneous and incongruous. I reject your Replacement Theology.

The physical promises of Israel relating to Israel have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. He has abolished the old natural arrangement.

We have been made one with true Israel - the Israel of Israel (Rom 9:6). We are now the circumcision. We are the spiritual Jews. We are the citizens of Israel. We have been grafted into the Olive Tree. We are the children of Israel.

 

[WPM]

Uncomfortable with it? It's a lie, a slander! You are using arguments by later Amil Church Fathers, who wished to quash the Chliasts by using these kinds of tactics. But they are illegitimate, particularly as we look back from our own time frame. The Chiliasts could hardly defend themselves at a time when Amil took prominence. But I can say with certainty that they rejected the early Premiil heretics. End of argument.

LOL. Facts are stubborn things! They show the source of your beliefs. You duck around the evidence like a chicken on a hot griddle. It is funny to watch!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Marcion

I've already answered your claims about Marcion and Cerinthus. Instead of reposting why don't you go back and read my answers? Marcion and Cerinthus were heretics, and not "Christian" in any true orthodox sense. By contrast, the Chiliastic Church Fathers were largely orthodox in doctrine. You might as well claim you get your teachings from Joseph Smith because he taught out of the Christian Bible before you did!

The Apostle John and the book of Revelation were the true source of Chiliastic teaching. And the Chiliasts in Asia Minor were connected to John both geographically and by personal relations.

 

[WPM]

I've already answered this. Sin is part of the definition of who Man is, and Man is not expunged from a planet that has not been annihilated. The Kingdom of Messiah enforces a sinful planet to obey his rule. And the glorified saints are said to join him in this rule, after the 2nd Coming. The implication, if there is a world to be subdued, is that it is "sinful." It is, in fact, a synonym, for sin!

Characterizing the Millennial Age is not to be our major concern, as Jesus indicated, which is why there is a dearth of information on this in the Early Church. We simply aren't given many details from the Lord Himself! So your focus is off the beaten path, and majoring on a minor.

No early Chiliast cared to characterize the Millennial Age as "evil" for the simple reason that they rightly focused on the present hope of the Church, which is to be glorified at that time in a sin-free perfect environment. The earth, which is ruled over during that time, will obviously not be perfect yet--not until the New Earth arrives at the end of the Millennium.

Since the early Chiliasts believed the literal version of the Millennium, this had to have been their position, whether they spelled it out for you or not! They believed the Kingdom or Messianic Age would last a literal thousand years, after which the world will be finally purged of all sin and evil.

Satan would be bound throughout the thousand years, and then deposited forever into the Lake of Fire. His final judgment actually begins at the Return of Christ, but it is consummated in his complete disposal after the thousand years.

But you've now heard this a number of times, and you just wish to continue to pose the same questions as if they haven't been answered. At some point I will ignore you.

By saying all this, you are admitting (what the rest of us can see): that my thesis in the Op is actually right. You have nothing of historic value to bring to the discussion. That is why it is pointless engaging with you. Why waste your time presenting your own theology? We know what you believe. That proves nothing. That is the sole source of your argument. We are supposed to be talking about what the ECFs held and taught. You are incapable of presenting hard historic evidence from them to support your beliefs. This is because they did not believe what you believe in regard to a future world. They anticipated what Amils expect today - a perfect, wicked-free, Satan-free, curse-free, sin-free, death-free, decay-free arrangement.

 

[WPM]

I've already answered your claims about Marcion and Cerinthus. Instead of reposting why don't you go back and read my answers? Marcion and Cerinthus were heretics, and not "Christian" in any true orthodox sense. By contrast, the Chiliastic Church Fathers were largely orthodox in doctrine. You might as well claim you get your teachings from Joseph Smith because he taught out of the Christian Bible before you did!

The Apostle John and the book of Revelation were the true source of Chiliastic teaching. And the Chiliasts in Asia Minor were connected to John both geographically and by personal relations.

Not so. Joseph Smith invented his own book.

Now, please address the evidence! The early Premil heretics are describing your beliefs. You have no orthodox writers until AD 240. Why not admit that? When you finally got a Premil from over 200 years after the cross - Lacantius, you (ill-advisedly) lauded his Premil credentials without doing your due diligence. Sadly, you failed to tell the reader that this early writer based his position on the pagan Sibyl prophetesses’. I find it strange that you are comfortable with promoting such a dubious source. But that is the historic hand you have been dealt.

Lacantius in Divine Institutes, seems to portray a Millennial world in which the nations continue to exist as always until Christians take on the form of angels at the end of this era. I'll comment more later, but Lancantius treats this as if this is the normal Christian view.

Let us look at the full un-doctored quote from Lactantius (apart from a small portion removed at the end because of longevity).

as the Sibyl testifies and says:--

"For then there shall be confusion of mortals throughout the whole earth, when the Almighty Himself shall come on His judgment-seat to judge the souls of the quick and dead, and all the world."

But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.

Which the Sibyl proclaims in another place, as she utters her inspired predictions:--

"Hear me, ye mortals; an everlasting King reigns."

Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.[1] But the nations shall not be entirely extinguished, but some shall be left as a victory for God, that they may be the occasion of triumph to the righteous, and may be subjected to perpetual slavery. About the same time also the prince of the devils, who is the contriver of all evils, shall be bound with chains, and shall be imprisoned during the thousand years of the heavenly rule in which righteousness shall reign in the world, so that he may contrive no evil against the people of God. After His coming the righteous shall be collected from all the earth, and the judgment being completed, the sacred city shall be planted in the middle of the earth, in which God Himself the builder may dwell together with the righteous, bearing rule in it.

And the Sibyl marks out this city when she says:--

"And the city which God made this He made more brilliant than the stars, and sun, and moon."

Then that darkness will be taken away from the world with which the heaven will be overspread and darkened, and the moon will receive the brightness of the sun, nor will it be further diminished: but the sun will become seven times brighter than it now is; and the earth will open its fruitfulness, and bring forth most abundant fruits of its own accord; the rocky mountains shall drop with honey; streams of wine shall run down, and rivers flow with milk: in short, the world itself shall rejoice, and all nature exult, being rescued and set free from the dominion of evil and impiety, and guilt and error. Throughout this time beasts shall not be nourished by blood, nor birds by prey; but all things shall be peaceful and tranquil. Lions and calves shall stand together at the manger, the wolf shall not carry off the sheep, the hound shall not hunt for prey; hawks and eagles shall not injure; the infant shall play with serpents.

In short, those things shall then come to pass which the poets spoke of as being done in the reign of Saturnus.

Whose error arose from this source,--that the prophets bring forward and speak of many future events as already accomplished. For visions were brought before their eyes by the divine Spirit, and they saw these things, as it were, done and completed in their own sight. And when fame had gradually spread abroad their predictions, since those who were uninstructed in the mysteries[2] of religion did not know why they were spoken, they thought that all those things were already fulfilled in the ancient ages, which evidently could not be accomplished and fulfilled under the reign of a man.[3] But when, after the destruction of impious religions and the suppression of guilt, the earth shall be subject to God,--

"The sailor[4] himself also shall renounce the sea, nor shall the naval pine Barter merchandise; all lands shall produce all things. The ground shall not endure the harrow, nor the vineyard the pruning hook; The sturdy ploughman also shall loose the bulls from the yoke. The plain shall by degrees grow yellow with soft ears of corn, The blushing grape shall hang on the uncultivated brambles, And hard oaks shall distil the dewy honey. Nor shall the wool learn to counterfeit various colours; But the ram himself in the meadows shall change his fleece, Now for a sweetly blushing purple, now for saffron dye; Scarlet of its own accord shall cover the lambs as they feed. The goats of themselves shall bring back home their udders distended with milk; Nor shall the herds dread huge lions."[5]

Which things the poet foretold according to the verses of the Cumaean Sibyl. But the Erythraean thus speaks:--

"But wolves shall not contend with lambs on the mountains, and lynxes shall eat grass with kids; boars shall feed with calves, and with all flocks; and the carnivorous lion shall eat chaff at the manger, and serpents shall sleep with infants deprived of their mothers."

And in another place, speaking of the fruitfulness of all things:--

"And then shall God give great joy to men; for the earth, and the trees, and the numberless flocks of the earth shall give to men the true fruit of the vine, and sweet honey, and white milk, and corn, which is the best of all things to mortals."

And another in the same manner:--

"The sacred land of the pious only will produce all these things, the stream of honey from the rock and from the fountain, and the milk of ambrosia will flow for all the just."

Therefore men will live a most tranquil life, abounding with resources, and will reign together with God; and the kings of the nations shall come from the ends of the earth with gifts and offerings, to adore and honour the great King, whose name shall be renowned and venerated by all the nations which shall be trader heaven, and by the kings who shall rule on earth.

"These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: but I have not considered it necessary to bring forward their testimonies and words, since it would be an endless task; nor would the limits of my book receive so great a multitude of subjects, since so many with one breath speak similar things; and at the same time, lest weariness should be occasioned to the readers if I should heap together things collected and transferred froth all; moreover, that I might confirm those very things which I said, not by my own writings, but in an especial manner by the writings of others, and might show that not only among us, but even with those very persons who revile us, the truth is preserved,[1] which they refuse to acknowledge.[2] But he who wishes to know these things more accurately may draw from the fountain itself, and he will know more things worthy of admiration than we have comprised in these books …

which the Sibyls say shall come to pass

 

[WPM]

I've already answered your claims about Marcion and Cerinthus. Instead of reposting why don't you go back and read my answers? Marcion and Cerinthus were heretics, and not "Christian" in any true orthodox sense. By contrast, the Chiliastic Church Fathers were largely orthodox in doctrine. You might as well claim you get your teachings from Joseph Smith because he taught out of the Christian Bible before you did!

The Apostle John and the book of Revelation were the true source of Chiliastic teaching. And the Chiliasts in Asia Minor were connected to John both geographically and by personal relations.

Early Christian millennialism was heavily influenced by the prevailing Jewish apocryphal literature existing around 200 BC to AD 100. These included the Jewish apocalyptic works of the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin (Folio 97a), 4th Esdras, the Sibylline Books and The Book of Jubilees. The early Christians in Asia Minor were heavily influenced by these apocalyptic writings and the Messianic fever that still existed amongst the Jews after the earthly ministry of Christ. Remember many of them we’re living in a day prior to the widely-accepted establishment of the Canon of Scripture.

These were popular Jewish influences on the Chiliasts at the time of the early Church. That is why there is not one single quote from any early writer (including Papias) of all the core Premil fundamentals: like the casting down of Satan and his consequence binding at the second coming, two future resurrection and judgement days separated by 1000 years and the suspension of Christ's kingly reign till a future millennium. This is why Premils are beating their heads against a brick wall trying to find a connection with these early writers - including the Chiliasts.

Early Christian millennialism was also heavily influenced by the speculations regarding the Cosmic Week and its supposed completion with a Sabbath rest. What many today do not realize, both Premillennialists and Amillennialists bought into this theory. The only difference was, the seventh day for Premillennialists was a future millennial, whereas the Amillennialists believed that the seventh day was an eternal day without end.

The apostate Jews promoted the future restoration in full of the old covenant ceremonial arrangement in a Messianic era on the earth centered in Jerusalem because they were unwilling to accept Christ of the Messiah and the cross-work as the fulfilment of the Old Testament temple system and the final sacrifice for sin.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Let us take the phrase “a thousand years.” There is a big difference between “a thousand years” (which Scriptures states) and "one thousand years" (as you keep stating). The number 'one' is not included in the narrative, you must insert it in. Rather it is the more general thousand.

This is one of the most inane answers I have seen written here! one thousand years= a thousand years! the one is implied! C'mon are you that desperate to keep your agenda alive?

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage is often advanced by Premillennialists as proof of a literal physical future earthly millennium.

Well I have been pre-mil for over forty years now and have read dozen of eschatological books from many theological views, and I have yet to find one text that mentions Ps. 90 as a proof text for the millenial kingdom.

But to address this passage- If one looks at it euphemistically, then 1,000 humn years are but a day to the Lord , so one Lrd day is 1,000 human years. But I know this is a euphemism because of the "but as" which is a comparative term- which is not found in revelation! But then again we are comparting OT and NT in 2 differing languages with the Greek being far more specific.

In Ecclesiastes 6:3, 6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

Once again this is a comparative passage and Solomon here is speaking of a literal 1,000 years! The subject being that no matter how long one lives (here even 1,000 years) that an empty soul is a terrible life to live and better to be unborn. But thanks for trying.

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

Irrelavent argument. Solomon is not saying people can live to a thousand years! Though Methuselah lived 969 years after the fall! Why is it that perfectly rational intelligent people when they get caught up in covenant theology and allegorical interpretations become some of tghe most lousy people in understanding basic sentences?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter, however, says in response, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (vv 5-9).

Well as I learned in grammar school, this is an obvious comparative passage with the subject being Gods longsuffering and patience towards us! It is not a doctgrinal statement saying a day=1,000 years or vice versa! That little teeny tiny word "as" shows us it is a comparative term. No com[parative language is found in the six time 1,000 years occurs in Revelation.

See God is smarter than us. God created grammar and the rules of grammar and also gave us the ability to read. When God wanted to make a comparison, He knew we can be dumb as sheep (Which is why He called u9s sheep) so when He wanted to make a comparison (which is not meant as literal) He put comparative words in the sentence so that when following the rules of Grammar He created, we would know it is not literal!

also when something is to be understood as literal, He did not put comparative terms in the sentence. The only time this is broken is when the construct apart from comparative terms shows something is not to be taken literally. All this is learnbed in English grammar and in Greek and Hebrew grammar as well. these rules are universal AFAIK

Peter thus outlines two distinct yet contrasting time equations in this passage for the sole purpose of expressing a deep spiritual truth. Notwithstanding, and not surprisingly, the Premillennialist are swift to selectively advance the first aspect of this calculation as supposed evidence that one of God’s heavenly days represents a thousand literal temporal earthly years. However, whilst they unquestionably address, and happily literalise, the first part of this calculation they are understandably careful to side step the second part of the sum. Evidently, such is for the reason that it doesn’t fit their flawed hyper-literalist mode of interpretation.

I am sure there are som epre-mils who may hold that view. why don't you supply th ename of one seeing as you are making an accusation against pre-mils.. Proving your assertion would be a nice thing.

Significantly, this reading in no place suggests the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years. The Premillennialist forces that into the reading. In the above passage it simply indicates “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Once again , I know of no premils who hold this. so either support your generic accusation or recant of slander and lying.

Anyone who contends that this passage supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of these last verses.

Well as I said I know of no writer of premil doctrine who believes this, on this we can agree!


καυσούμενα
kausoumena

This is from 2 Peter 3 and simply means to burn with great heat. The level of destruction is supplied by adjectivers or adverbs. So you are incorrect.

The greek word you spelled is a form of kataklsymos which is only used of the flood of Noahs day.

Anyone who contends that this passage supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of these last verses.

Well I know not one who contends this absurdity- so it is just a red herring and strawman

Those who spiritualise this day by stretching this fiery time-period out over the duration of a literal 1,000 years forget that the detail embodied within the description of the said day destroys any credence that they have for promoting their mistaken interpretation of Revelation 20. They completely demolish their own argument by advancing such a fanciful idea. They are quick to argue “day” doesn’t mean a literal day in Scripture, and “hour” doesn’t mean a literal hour in Scripture, yet they always arrive at a literal future thousand-year millennium every time they examine the symbolic detail of Revelation 20.

and as soon as you cite one book which advances this crazy notion we can talk about it. But until then, it appears you are simply throwing out accusationsd to tarnsih your opponents in this debate to make your own argument look better.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Porphyry/Porphyrius

Porphyrius is another heretic who promoted the Premillennial doctrine. He was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and held views that were in conflict with the more-moderate classic early Chiliasm.

This is astonishing. I haven’t followed all of your and Randy’s discussion but noticed this post #721. It certainly sounded like some of the extreme branches of Premil today.

 

[WPM]

This is astonishing. I haven’t followed all of your and Randy’s discussion but noticed this post #721. It certainly sounded like some of the extreme branches of Premil today.

Exactly. This is the hidden history of Christendom.

 

[Taken]

Premillennialism, is the belief that Jesus will return to Earth before the millennium, thousand year reign.

Rev 6
[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

Seems to me the Tribulation of God has begun...

So, @Paul Malcomson .... Can you identify the Scripture of when Jesus returns to earth?

 

[covenantee]

καυσούμενα
kausoumena

This is from 2 Peter 3 and simply means to burn with great heat. The level of destruction is supplied by adjectivers or adverbs. So you are incorrect.

So in your dispensational "grammar", great is not an "adjectiver".
You are correct. It is not an "adjectiver" in any grammar.
It is an adjective.

great
[ɡrāt]
ADJECTIVE

1. of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average:
   "the article was of great interest" ·
   considerable · substantial · pronounced · sizeable · significant ·
   prominent · eminent · preeminent · important · distinguished · august ·
   enthusiastic · eager · keen · zealous · devoted · ardent · fervent ·
   [more]

The greek word you spelled is a form of kataklsymos which is only used of the flood of Noahs day.

God is going to burn up the earth using "Noahs" flood.

Got it.

 

[WPM]

Premillennialism, is the belief that Jesus will return to Earth before the millennium, thousand year reign.

Rev 6
[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

Seems to me the Tribulation of God has begun...

So, @Paul Malcomson .... Can you identify the Scripture of when Jesus returns to earth?

The Church has been in tribulation since the stoning of Stephen.

 

[Scott Downey]

The Church has been tribulation since the stoning of Stephen.

Except the church does not experience direct tribulation come from God, that tribulation is for the unsaved unbelieving world.
What you calling tribulation is not a proper use of the word. Time of tribulation is not for the church. In fact the kingdom of the Beast world government system yet to come, kills all who will not worship the beast or his image. Their death is not tribulation come from God. But the people who belong to the Beast, who are marked with his name, do experience tribulation come from God.

 

[Scott Downey]

From the world, the church will experience tribulations, but not experience tribulations come from God.
John 16:33
These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”