Ammillennialism and Pretribulationism both fly against the Early Church

[Jamdoc]

Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John, who wrote Revelation wrote in "Against Heresies" a premillennial view of eschatology, that had the Church put to flight by Antichrist (so incompatible with Pre-tribulationism), and took prophecy literally (including the number 666, which while it was a symbol for the accumulation of sin all put on one man, it was still literally a number that could be calculated from his name using GREEK Gematria not Hebrew or English or any other language, but Greek), and was incompatible with the heresies later brought by Origen and Augustine, theological poison introduced in the 4th and 5th centuries that poisoned Christian Theology for over 1000 years (and still poison it today)

Views compatible with the early church are Post-tribulation Premillennialism (Historic Premillennialism as opposed to Dispensational), and possibly Pre-wrath Premillennialism (as the main thing said to be faced by the church is the reign of Antichrist not supernatural judgements from God)
Pre-wrath is a newer teaching on it that sees a more distinct difference between Antichrist's reign/Tribulation vs God's Wrath (taking literally the bowls and trumpets as God's wrath as opposed to most post-trib seeing the bowls and trumpets as "symbols" and just "tribulation" rather than the wrath of God), so it's still compatible as both schools believe it's future, premillennial, and the Church would face Antichrist before being delivered. Pre-wrath's main problem is a hangover from a Pre-tribulation view that I believe most start in before reading the bible and seeing a more post-trib view in the bible but they hang onto the '2 second comings' from pre-trib too hard (I only believe in 1 second coming but it's earlier)

Views incompatible with the Early Church are Amillennialism, Post-Millennialism, Full and Partial Preterism (as if even part had been fulfilled, the Early Church Fathers would have wrote about how those parts were fulfilled), and Pre-tribulation Dispensational Premillennialism.

Historicism is hard to say, as historical events could have happened in our past but the Early Church's future though most Historicism relies on allegorical interpretation more in line with Amillennialism which was incompatible with the Early Church (that is 1st and second centuries, pre Augustinian Platonic Cancer infection) as its base.

 

[RandyPNW]

Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John, who wrote Revelation wrote in "Against Heresies" a premillennial view of eschatology, that had the Church put to flight by Antichrist (so incompatible with Pre-tribulationism), and took prophecy literally (including the number 666, which while it was a symbol for the accumulation of sin all put on one man, it was still literally a number that could be calculated from his name using GREEK Gematria not Hebrew or English or any other language, but Greek), and was incompatible with the heresies later brought by Origen and Augustine, theological poison introduced in the 4th and 5th centuries that poisoned Christian Theology for over 1000 years (and still poison it today)

I have heard that Irenaeus interpreted "666" to refer to a "Latin King," thus identifying Antichrist as coming out of a later Roman Empire. Have you heard that? I personally think it's the best interpretation for "666," as opposed to the numerical equivalent of Nero or some other historical figure.

But you are right, in my view, that the Apostle John, who wrote of the Millennium, passed on to a train of disciples a Premillennial belief, or Chiliasm. And I also agree that the standard Christian belief, historically, was Postribulationism--not Pretribulationism, or Dispensationalism, which came many centuries after the time of the Early Church.

Views compatible with the early church are Post-tribulation Premillennialism (Historic Premillennialism as opposed to Dispensational), and possibly Pre-wrath Premillennialism (as the main thing said to be faced by the church is the reign of Antichrist not supernatural judgements from God)
Pre-wrath is a newer teaching on it that sees a more distinct difference between Antichrist's reign/Tribulation vs God's Wrath (taking literally the bowls and trumpets as God's wrath as opposed to most post-trib seeing the bowls and trumpets as "symbols" and just "tribulation" rather than the wrath of God), so it's still compatible as both schools believe it's future, premillennial, and the Church would face Antichrist before being delivered.

Postrib and PreWrath are "cousin" positions, although PreWrath does appear to borrow some Pretrib assumptions, such as the belief that the Church cannot face the Day of Wrath. In my view, going through the time of God's Wrath is not the same thing as being the *target* of God's Wrath. Call us victims of "friendly fire," or "collateral damage," we do suffer from the sins of this world, just as Jesus himself suffered the sins in this present world.

I'm Postrib but do not see the "bowls" as purely "symbols of God's Wrath." Yes, they are symbolic, but they represent God's real Wrath to come upon the Kingdom of Antichrist at the time of his demise. Unlike Pretribbers, I do not view the entire period of Antichrist's Reign as "God's Wrath." God never blesses an evil kingdom, and He will certainly place curses upon the Beast Kingdom. But final Wrath comes upon the Kingdom of Antichrist towards or at the very end of this period, in my view.

Pre-wrath's main problem is a hangover from a Pre-tribulation view that I believe most start in before reading the bible and seeing a more post-trib view in the bible but they hang onto the '2 second comings' from pre-trib too hard (I only believe in 1 second coming but it's earlier)

Views incompatible with the Early Church are Amillennialism, Post-Millennialism, Full and Partial Preterism (as if even part had been fulfilled, the Early Church Fathers would have wrote about how those parts were fulfilled), and Pre-tribulation Dispensational Premillennialism.

I'm not a Partial Preterist, but I do believe they have right a major part of interpreting the Olivet Discourse. Jesus' main focus, in that Discourse, was on the beginning of Jewish punishment in Jesus' generation. In 70 AD, the "Abomination of Desolation," the pagan Roman Army, came against Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple of God. The result has been an age-long "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People, which will end at the Return of Christ. My view...

Historicism is hard to say, as historical events could have happened in our past but the Early Church's future though most Historicism relies on allegorical interpretation more in line with Amillennialism which was incompatible with the Early Church (that is 1st and second centuries, pre Augustinian Platonic Cancer infection) as its base.

Yes, Historicism tends to be Amillennial, but I would agree with the general sense that all prophecy has a fulfillment in history, whether earlier or later. But I'm not a Historicist interpreter because I see Antichrist as fulfilled at the end, which is more Futurism than anything else. I just am not a Dispensationalist.

I found your explanation pretty good! A big "like" for you!

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John, who wrote Revelation wrote in "Against Heresies" a premillennial view of eschatology, that had the Church put to flight by Antichrist (so incompatible with Pre-tribulationism), and took prophecy literally (including the number 666, which while it was a symbol for the accumulation of sin all put on one man, it was still literally a number that could be calculated from his name using GREEK Gematria not Hebrew or English or any other language, but Greek), and was incompatible with the heresies later brought by Origen and Augustine, theological poison introduced in the 4th and 5th centuries that poisoned Christian Theology for over 1000 years (and still poison it today)

Views compatible with the early church are Post-tribulation Premillennialism (Historic Premillennialism as opposed to Dispensational), and possibly Pre-wrath Premillennialism (as the main thing said to be faced by the church is the reign of Antichrist not supernatural judgements from God)
Pre-wrath is a newer teaching on it that sees a more distinct difference between Antichrist's reign/Tribulation vs God's Wrath (taking literally the bowls and trumpets as God's wrath as opposed to most post-trib seeing the bowls and trumpets as "symbols" and just "tribulation" rather than the wrath of God), so it's still compatible as both schools believe it's future, premillennial, and the Church would face Antichrist before being delivered. Pre-wrath's main problem is a hangover from a Pre-tribulation view that I believe most start in before reading the bible and seeing a more post-trib view in the bible but they hang onto the '2 second comings' from pre-trib too hard (I only believe in 1 second coming but it's earlier)

Views incompatible with the Early Church are Amillennialism, Post-Millennialism, Full and Partial Preterism (as if even part had been fulfilled, the Early Church Fathers would have wrote about how those parts were fulfilled), and Pre-tribulation Dispensational Premillennialism.

Historicism is hard to say, as historical events could have happened in our past but the Early Church's future though most Historicism relies on allegorical interpretation more in line with Amillennialism which was incompatible with the Early Church (that is 1st and second centuries, pre Augustinian Platonic Cancer infection) as its base.

Historicism trumps futurism. We have lived in the time of the rich merchants for almost 200 years, and since the merchants were made rich through the harlot Babylon (Revelation 18:3), the harlot is history too. Historicism is the only proper way to decipher the allegories, insomuch as the symbolism isn't to be taken literally.

 

[Jamdoc]

I have heard that Irenaeus interpreted "666" to refer to a "Latin King," thus identifying Antichrist as coming out of a later Roman Empire. Have you heard that? I personally think it's the best interpretation for "666," as opposed to the numerical equivalent of Nero or some other historical figure.

Irenaeus interpreted 666 as a Greek Gematria number, but cautioned against trying to use it until a specific time. First that the kingdom would have to be divided into 10 kingdoms and the 10 kings, then someone would terrorize the 10 kings (as the Antichrist is said to subdue 3 of them), in other words Irenaeus advised using 666 to confirm a suspicion after you had an end times setup already underway and it'd be to confirm, rather than predict Antichrist.
Pretty sound reasoning.

But you are right, in my view, that the Apostle John, who wrote of the Millennium, passed on to a train of disciples a Premillennial belief, or Chiliasm. And I also agree that the standard Christian belief, historically, was Postribulationism--not Pretribulationism, or Dispensationalism, which came many centuries after the time of the Early Church.

Postrib and PreWrath are "cousin" positions, although PreWrath does appear to borrow some Pretrib assumptions, such as the belief that the Church cannot face the Day of Wrath. In my view, going through the time of God's Wrath is not the same thing as being the *target* of God's Wrath. Call us victims of "friendly fire," or "collateral damage," we do suffer from the sins of this world, just as Jesus himself suffered the sins in this present world.

The differences between Post-trib and Pre-wrath can be mostly semantics and nuance, with the exception of most pre-wrath still having some pre-trib baggage namely that there would be 2 second comings. I've moved away from that myself. I only see one second coming, like a post-trib, but place it earlier than they do. Namely I have Jesus on Earth during the wrath of God, but not the Church, to fit Isaiah 63.

I'm Postrib but do not see the "bowls" as purely "symbols of God's Wrath." Yes, they are symbolic, but they represent God's real Wrath to come upon the Kingdom of Antichrist at the time of his demise. Unlike Pretribbers, I do not view the entire period of Antichrist's Reign as "God's Wrath." God never blesses an evil kingdom, and He will certainly place curses upon the Beast Kingdom. But final Wrath comes upon the Kingdom of Antichrist towards or at the very end of this period, in my view.

I'm not a Partial Preterist, but I do believe they have right a major part of interpreting the Olivet Discourse. Jesus' main focus, in that Discourse, was on the beginning of Jewish punishment in Jesus' generation. In 70 AD, the "Abomination of Desolation," the pagan Roman Army, came against Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple of God. The result has been an age-long "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People, which will end at the Return of Christ. My view...

See this is where I think a writing like Irenaeus is valuable. If it had been partially fulfilled in the first century, Irenaeus would write about what was fulfilled.
Instead Irenaeus treated the entire 70th week as yet future for him. That's a pretty strong blow I believe against any partial fulfillment of the 70th week or Olivet Discourse... that the Early Church after 70AD still looked at them as future events.

Yes, Historicism tends to be Amillennial, but I would agree with the general sense that all prophecy has a fulfillment in history, whether earlier or later. But I'm not a Historicist interpreter because I see Antichrist as fulfilled at the end, which is more Futurism than anything else. I just am not a Dispensationalist.

I found your explanation pretty good! A big "like" for you!

 

[Jamdoc]

Historicism trumps futurism. We have lived in the time of the rich merchants for almost 200 years, and since the merchants were made rich through the harlot Babylon (Revelation 18:3), the harlot is history too. Historicism is the only proper way to decipher the allegories, insomuch as the symbolism isn't to be taken literally.

the weakness I feel is that Historicism requires very heavy allegorization to make work, and to disregard that Jesus said "all these things" would take place within one generation. Hundreds of years is a really hard argument to make, requiring allegorization of the word "generation" itself.

A preterist or partial preterist will interpret that verse (Matthew 24:34) as "this generation" would be the Apostles He was talking to, stressing that it would have to take place in the first century, and then tries to jury rig the events to force them to fit what was predicted to happen, latching onto AD70 because a significant thing happened, and then using allegorization in order to explain why the things did not literally happen the way it was written.
Realizing that preterism only really cropped up later and that the Early Church was futurist from their point of view.. kind of throws a curveball at any preterism, full or partial, because the Early Church would use fulfillment as an evangelistic tool. Just as we use the crucifixion and resurrection and point back to old testament passages referring to them as evangelistic tools. In fact the gospels and epistles refer back to the old testament to show which parts were fulfilled already, they use it as a tool for evangelism. Why wouldn't Early Church fathers do the same with 70AD if they believed 70AD fulfilled any prophecy?

a futurist will take that verse and link it back to its context, Matthew 24:32-34, to point out that the Generation that Jesus refers to is the one that witnesses the parable of the fig tree (referring back to the fig tree withered outside of Jerusalem in Matthew 21). Most futurists will see that being fulfilled with the creation of the state of Israel in modern times, referencing Ezekiel 36 with God's promises to bring the Jews back into their land after being scattered among the nations. Their challenge is currently trying to find out how long a "generation" is in the bible and with 40 years being long past (1988, in which many pre-trib believed the rapture would happen then), the 70 years being past, and now people are trying to go with 80 years. In truth I don't think 1948 was even the starting date as Jesus is not returning to Tel Aviv, nor do I think that Jesus meant to use Psalm 90 as a date setting device, but more just.. I think someone who was alive in 1967.. is going to see Jesus return.

Historicists face the challenge of the word "generation" they cannot have it mean what is normally meant by "generation" and have to allegorize the term to mean "all who are righteous" or something like that, because if Jesus meant a single lifespan would be able to witness all the things He was talking about... their position falls apart.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

the weakness I feel is that Historicism requires very heavy allegorization to make work, and to disregard that Jesus said "all these things" would take place within one generation. Hundreds of years is a really hard argument to make, requiring allegorization of the word "generation" itself.

A preterist or partial preterist will interpret that verse (Matthew 24:34) as "this generation" would be the Apostles He was talking to, stressing that it would have to take place in the first century, and then tries to jury rig the events to force them to fit what was predicted to happen, latching onto AD70 because a significant thing happened, and then using allegorization in order to explain why the things did not literally happen the way it was written.
Realizing that preterism only really cropped up later and that the Early Church was futurist from their point of view.. kind of throws a curveball at any preterism, full or partial, because the Early Church would use fulfillment as an evangelistic tool. Just as we use the crucifixion and resurrection and point back to old testament passages referring to them as evangelistic tools. In fact the gospels and epistles refer back to the old testament to show which parts were fulfilled already, they use it as a tool for evangelism. Why wouldn't Early Church fathers do the same with 70AD if they believed 70AD fulfilled any prophecy?

a futurist will take that verse and link it back to its context, Matthew 24:32-34, to point out that the Generation that Jesus refers to is the one that witnesses the parable of the fig tree (referring back to the fig tree withered outside of Jerusalem in Matthew 21). Most futurists will see that being fulfilled with the creation of the state of Israel in modern times, referencing Ezekiel 36 with God's promises to bring the Jews back into their land after being scattered among the nations. Their challenge is currently trying to find out how long a "generation" is in the bible and with 40 years being long past (1988, in which many pre-trib believed the rapture would happen then), the 70 years being past, and now people are trying to go with 80 years. In truth I don't think 1948 was even the starting date as Jesus is not returning to Tel Aviv, nor do I think that Jesus meant to use Psalm 90 as a date setting device, but more just.. I think someone who was alive in 1967.. is going to see Jesus return.

Historicists face the challenge of the word "generation" they cannot have it mean what is normally meant by "generation" and have to allegorize the term to mean "all who are righteous" or something like that, because if Jesus meant a single lifespan would be able to witness all the things He was talking about... their position falls apart.

You’re sidestepping the evidence we live in the time of the rich merchants, which makes the prophecy of the harlot Babylon history in support of historicism.

As to “this generation,” Christ is speaking to his disciples, which means you’re taking it way out of context, as futurists do.

In the OD (Olivet Discourse), Christ holds those who take advantage of his delay as evil servants in Matthew 24:44-51, which promotes delay. The analogy with the people of the flood in verses 37-39, or the antediluvians, also prompts a delay in Peter’s use of the same analogy. “In the last days,” according to Peter, “scoffers” will say, “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,” which promotes delay, not imminence. Then Peter interprets imminence from God’s perspective; he is “prompt” in fulfilling his promises, even if it takes a generation or two thousand years.

Yet futurists take the temporal marker of Daniel’s seventy weeks figuratively as 490 years, not days, a significant delay cloaked in imminence.

The seventy weeks, the day-year principle, are an example of the concealment of delay in imminence to prevent the evil servants from taking advantage of the delay. The method of interpreting the seventy weeks is a biblical principle. The consequence of the delay hidden in the 70 weeks is that it allows other temporal markers to be analyzed in such a way as to hinder the unregenerated from taking advantage of a delay in prophecy. The use of imminence as a prophetic principle was “first used in Christian exposition in 380 AD by Ticonius, who interpreted the three and a half days of Revelation 11:9 as three and a half years.” It is impossible to interpret Christ’s pronouncement that “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” in the OD as literal, considering the consequences that his return is also linked with his reward of authority in his dominion or kingdom,

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. (Matthew 24:46-47)​

If the passage pertained to our future, there would be no need to warn anyone of the delay of Christ’s return.

As to the Jews in Palestine, Ezekiel 37 maintains Christ is placed over Israel when it is gathered, which means Zionism is an attempt by the tenants who were rejected to take the kingdom by force.

Again, you’re taking the phrase in the OD out of context, as futurists do, but Christ was addressing his disciples, not someone living 2000 years in the future. And the principle of clocking delay in imminence to prevent the evil servants from taking advantage of delay trumps your futurist lens and agrees with the ramifications we have been living in the time of the rich merchants for some two hundred years.

 

[HTacianas]

Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John, who wrote Revelation wrote in "Against Heresies" a premillennial view of eschatology, that had the Church put to flight by Antichrist (so incompatible with Pre-tribulationism), and took prophecy literally (including the number 666, which while it was a symbol for the accumulation of sin all put on one man, it was still literally a number that could be calculated from his name using GREEK Gematria not Hebrew or English or any other language, but Greek), and was incompatible with the heresies later brought by Origen and Augustine, theological poison introduced in the 4th and 5th centuries that poisoned Christian Theology for over 1000 years (and still poison it today)

Views compatible with the early church are Post-tribulation Premillennialism (Historic Premillennialism as opposed to Dispensational), and possibly Pre-wrath Premillennialism (as the main thing said to be faced by the church is the reign of Antichrist not supernatural judgements from God)
Pre-wrath is a newer teaching on it that sees a more distinct difference between Antichrist's reign/Tribulation vs God's Wrath (taking literally the bowls and trumpets as God's wrath as opposed to most post-trib seeing the bowls and trumpets as "symbols" and just "tribulation" rather than the wrath of God), so it's still compatible as both schools believe it's future, premillennial, and the Church would face Antichrist before being delivered. Pre-wrath's main problem is a hangover from a Pre-tribulation view that I believe most start in before reading the bible and seeing a more post-trib view in the bible but they hang onto the '2 second comings' from pre-trib too hard (I only believe in 1 second coming but it's earlier)

Views incompatible with the Early Church are Amillennialism, Post-Millennialism, Full and Partial Preterism (as if even part had been fulfilled, the Early Church Fathers would have wrote about how those parts were fulfilled), and Pre-tribulation Dispensational Premillennialism.

Historicism is hard to say, as historical events could have happened in our past but the Early Church's future though most Historicism relies on allegorical interpretation more in line with Amillennialism which was incompatible with the Early Church (that is 1st and second centuries, pre Augustinian Platonic Cancer infection) as its base.

The idea of the millennium was abrogated by the Church. Talk of the millennium turned carnal, with all sorts of speculation as to what it would be like so the Church simply dismissed the idea of it. the Nicen Creed was amended to read Whose kingdom shall have no end.

If you'd like to see a proof of it, look to Islam's idea of 72 virgins in paradise. That is where their ideas of paradise come from. It's another example of Islam embracing an idea simply because the Church opposed it. What the Church condemned Islam accepted. What the Church accepted Islam rejected.

 

[Jamdoc]

You’re sidestepping the evidence we live in the time of the rich merchants, which makes the prophecy of the harlot Babylon history in support of historicism.

As to “this generation,” Christ is speaking to his disciples, which means you’re taking it way out of context, as futurists do.

In the OD (Olivet Discourse), Christ holds those who take advantage of his delay as evil servants in Matthew 24:44-51, which promotes delay. The analogy with the people of the flood in verses 37-39, or the antediluvians, also prompts a delay in Peter’s use of the same analogy. “In the last days,” according to Peter, “scoffers” will say, “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,” which promotes delay, not imminence. Then Peter interprets imminence from God’s perspective; he is “prompt” in fulfilling his promises, even if it takes a generation or two thousand years.

Yet futurists take the temporal marker of Daniel’s seventy weeks figuratively as 490 years, not days, a significant delay cloaked in imminence.

The seventy weeks, the day-year principle, are an example of the concealment of delay in imminence to prevent the evil servants from taking advantage of the delay. The method of interpreting the seventy weeks is a biblical principle. The consequence of the delay hidden in the 70 weeks is that it allows other temporal markers to be analyzed in such a way as to hinder the unregenerated from taking advantage of a delay in prophecy. The use of imminence as a prophetic principle was “first used in Christian exposition in 380 AD by Ticonius, who interpreted the three and a half days of Revelation 11:9 as three and a half years.” It is impossible to interpret Christ’s pronouncement that “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” in the OD as literal, considering the consequences that his return is also linked with his reward of authority in his dominion or kingdom,

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. (Matthew 24:46-47)​

If the passage pertained to our future, there would be no need to warn anyone of the delay of Christ’s return.

As to the Jews in Palestine, Ezekiel 37 maintains Christ is placed over Israel when it is gathered, which means Zionism is an attempt by the tenants who were rejected to take the kingdom by force.

Again, you’re taking the phrase in the OD out of context, as futurists do, but Christ was addressing his disciples, not someone living 2000 years in the future. And the principle of clocking delay in imminence to prevent the evil servants from taking advantage of delay trumps your futurist lens and agrees with the ramifications we have been living in the time of the rich merchants for some two hundred years.

you're taking 1 verse out of it's context, the same as preterists do.
Jesus gave a parable. then connected the verse to that parable.

the Parable had not been fulfilled in the first century.
therefore the generation in question was not the first century generation.
On top of this, that generation passed away, and all was not fulfilled.

... or Irenaeus would have wrote about it being fulfilled.

Historicism requires seeing "generation" as not being contained within a single lifespan.
and it being in a single lifespan is how Jesus meant it. That when someone sees some of these things, namely the abomination of desolation, within the same lifespan they'll see Jesus return. The bottom line being that these things will be short, they'll happen quickly, that it will NOT take hundreds or thousands of years once they start.
Jesus constantly says He will come quickly.
That is once the ball starts rolling it picks up speed and then suddenly it's crashing into things and knocking them over. It's a short period of time. That's in Daniel as well, time, times, and half a time, it's a short period of time.
Can you imagine if Jesus said that there'd be great tribulation for hundreds of years? You'd have no hope. You know no matter what happened you'd die suffering.
But if you know that after the abomination of desolation happens you have at most, 42 months to wait.. it seems more bearable, there's a chance you can escape. a chance at being rescued.
That's why "when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."
because it's a short period, when these things happen you can see the finish line, you can have hope.

It has to be a short period of time, or none of these signs are effective signs.

Say you're driving down the freeway, yes you may see a distance to a city you're driving to hundreds of miles away.. but that's so far away you just leave it on cruise control, you figure there'll be a long time yet of just driving on this road
but when you see signs of under 10 miles, and see signs for exits you need to take, now you pay more attention, and you start paying attention for where your exit is, you see the city skyline, you know you're close.

Those are the signs that matter.

and what many preterists do, and to some degree historicists as well.. is they place all the signposts 500 miles away.. so you're past all the signs, and then no more signs you just stay on cruise control, oh and it's foggy, so you can't see city skyline or anything, and then suddenly you crash into the side of a building in the city you were driving to.
because there are no signs telling you you're close.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

you're taking 1 verse out of it's context, the same as preterists do.
Jesus gave a parable. then connected the verse to that parable.

the Parable had not been fulfilled in the first century.
therefore the generation in question was not the first century generation.
On top of this, that generation passed away, and all was not fulfilled.

... or Irenaeus would have wrote about it being fulfilled.

Historicism requires seeing "generation" as not being contained within a single lifespan.
and it being in a single lifespan is how Jesus meant it. That when someone sees some of these things, namely the abomination of desolation, within the same lifespan they'll see Jesus return. The bottom line being that these things will be short, they'll happen quickly, that it will NOT take hundreds or thousands of years once they start.
Jesus constantly says He will come quickly.
That is once the ball starts rolling it picks up speed and then suddenly it's crashing into things and knocking them over. It's a short period of time. That's in Daniel as well, time, times, and half a time, it's a short period of time.
Can you imagine if Jesus said that there'd be great tribulation for hundreds of years? You'd have no hope. You know no matter what happened you'd die suffering.
But if you know that after the abomination of desolation happens you have at most, 42 months to wait.. it seems more bearable, there's a chance you can escape. a chance at being rescued.
That's why "when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."
because it's a short period, when these things happen you can see the finish line, you can have hope.

It has to be a short period of time, or none of these signs are effective signs.

Say you're driving down the freeway, yes you may see a distance to a city you're driving to hundreds of miles away.. but that's so far away you just leave it on cruise control, you figure there'll be a long time yet of just driving on this road
but when you see signs of under 10 miles, and see signs for exits you need to take, now you pay more attention, and you start paying attention for where your exit is, you see the city skyline, you know you're close.

Those are the signs that matter.

and what many preterists do, and to some degree historicists as well.. is they place all the signposts 500 miles away.. so you're past all the signs, and then no more signs you just stay on cruise control, oh and it's foggy, so you can't see city skyline or anything, and then suddenly you crash into the side of a building in the city you were driving to.
because there are no signs telling you you're close.

How typical. You can't deal with the evidence that we live in the time of the rich merchants and its ramifications, so you try to make enough excuses to cover up your inadequacy.

Furthermore, what are you talking about? Verse 1 of what? What parable are you talking about? You aren’t being coherent.

Christ is responding to two queries in the OD. One, when will the stones in Herod’s temple be thrown down, and two, what are the signs of his return and the end of the world,

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:1-3)​

Futurists make up fables that the temple in question is some future rebuilt temple to satisfy their misrepresentation of “this generation,” when the temple in question was destroyed in 70 AD. While preterists make up fables that the end of the world and Christ’s return happened in 70 AD.

Historicists read the passage correctly. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and Christ’s return is in our future. The correct reading affirms that the imminence conveyed by “this generation” is cryptic, just like the day-year principle in the seventy weeks in Daniel.

Futurists' and preterists' explanations are silly and evade the fact that we live in the time of the rich merchants, which vindicates historicism.

 

[Jamdoc]

The idea of the millennium was abrogated by the Church. Talk of the millennium turned carnal, with all sorts of speculation as to what it would be like so the Church simply dismissed the idea of it. the Nicen Creed was amended to read Whose kingdom shall have no end.

If you'd like to see a proof of it, look to Islam's idea of 72 virgins in paradise. That is where their ideas of paradise come from. It's another example of Islam embracing an idea simply because the Church opposed it. What the Church condemned Islam accepted. What the Church accepted Islam rejected.

That is why I call Origen and Augustine poison.
They moved away from the teachings of the Apostles, which was the doctrines held by the early Church and did their own spin, that got adopted by the Catholic Church and passed down, as opposed to the Early Church beliefs.

 

[Jamdoc]

How typical. You can't deal with the evidence that we live in the time of the rich merchants and its ramifications, so you try to make enough excuses to cover up your inadequacy.

Furthermore, what are you talking about? Verse 1 of what? What parable are you talking about? You aren’t being coherent.

Christ is responding to two queries in the OD. One, when will the stones in Herod’s temple be thrown down, and two, what are the signs of his return and the end of the world,

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:1-3)​

Futurists make up fables that the temple in question is some future rebuilt temple to satisfy their misrepresentation of “this generation,” when the temple in question was destroyed in 70 AD. While preterists make up fables that the end of the world and Christ’s return happened in 70 AD.

Historicists read the passage correctly. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and Christ’s return is in our future. The correct reading affirms that the imminence conveyed by “this generation” is cryptic, just like the day-year principle in the seventy weeks in Daniel.

Futurists' and preterists' explanations are silly and evade the fact that we live in the time of the rich merchants, which vindicates historicism.

Matthew 21

17 And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

then in Matthew 24

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

first, he points out that the fig tree he earlier withered that day, was a parable, a visual parable

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The meaning here is that Jesus gives a symbol that indicates the start of a period of time, and says that when you see it, that generation will witness all the things He talked about, including His return.
as to the explanation of that symbol...

Amos 8

1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me: and behold a basket of summer fruit.

the word translated "summer fruit" is qayis or qayit (I've seen both) and refers to figs (and pomegranates)

2 And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. Then said the Lord unto me, The end is come upon my people of Israel; I will not again pass by them any more.
3 And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day, saith the Lord God: there shall be many dead bodies in every place; they shall cast them forth with silence.

God explains the meaning of the Symbol, and Jesus makes reference to this in both His display of the withering of the fig tree, and in declaring that the fig tree is a parable, and His disciples would know what this parable is referencing in context of the end.

In essence: when Israel is near ready to be harvested, the end is near, when Israel is harvested, the end is actually come.

 

[HTacianas]

That is why I call Origen and Augustine poison.
They moved away from the teachings of the Apostles, which was the doctrines held by the early Church and did their own spin, that got adopted by the Catholic Church and passed down, as opposed to the Early Church beliefs.

Actually no. Justin Martyr wrote about chiliasm in Dialog With Trypho saying:

"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."

He supports chiliasm but points out that there are many who think otherwise. Not that it was some minority view or one held by only a few, but many. And that was long before either Origen or Augustine. That shows how far back the dispute goes. And the dispute was finally settled by the Church when chiliasm was condemned. The Eastern Church more or less ignores it as irrelevant while the Western Church labeled it an unsafe doctrine to teach.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Matthew 21


then in Matthew 24

first, he points out that the fig tree he earlier withered that day, was a parable, a visual parable

The meaning here is that Jesus gives a symbol that indicates the start of a period of time, and says that when you see it, that generation will witness all the things He talked about, including His return.
as to the explanation of that symbol...

Amos 8

the word translated "summer fruit" is qayis or qayit (I've seen both) and refers to figs (and pomegranates)

God explains the meaning of the Symbol, and Jesus makes reference to this in both His display of the withering of the fig tree, and in declaring that the fig tree is a parable, and His disciples would know what this parable is referencing in context of the end.

In essence: when Israel is near ready to be harvested, the end is near, when Israel is harvested, the end is actually come.

My initial post was a response to your OP; I didn’t see the one you wrote latter. I understand where you’re coming from now. But don’t think I’m going to let you sidestep the ramifications we live in the time of the rich merchants, which demolishes the point you’re trying to make about the parable.

Now, let’s add your evasion of the syntax and grammar of Matthew 24:1-3. Christ draws his disciples’ attention to the temple in their time and says, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” He’s addressing the temple before them, not one in the future. Later, when they arrive at the Mount of Olives, the disciples ask Christ, “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” Futurists ignore the grammar and syntax that confirm Christ was speaking of the temple in the first century to promote their fables about a hypothetical one yet to be built.

Let’s consider the parable. It’s crucial to understand that God concluded his dealings with the Old Covenant people when Christ inaugurated the New Covenant. Now, he interacts with them under the New Covenant, which fulfills what Amos 9 predicted, including their sifting by the nations. As the mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24), Christ has brought about a significant change. In Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. The hypothesis that God will resume his mediation over the Old Covenant people when Christ returns implies that the Old Covenant is still in effect, a notion that Hebrews unequivocally refutes.

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:9)​

Under the first covenant, God primarily interacted with Jacob’s descendants, while under the second, he now deals with the Church. It’s important to note that under the second covenant, God does not deal with the children of Israel separately. The children of Israel are saved under the New Covenant in this dispensation, not the Old. This crucial distinction means that prophecy about this age is about the Church, not the Jews in Palestine. As I previously mentioned, Ezekiel 37:21-23 asserts that Christ is king over Israel when they are gathered, which implies that Zionism is an attempt by the tenants who were rejected to seize the kingdom by force. The Gentiles who joined with them in this dispensation are gathered when Israel is gathered,

For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. (Isaiah 14:1)​

I can see why you’re so reluctant to confront the fact that we live in the time of the rich merchants, as it destroys futurism and preterism.

 

[Jamdoc]

My initial post was a response to your OP; I didn’t see the one you wrote latter. I understand where you’re coming from now. But don’t think I’m going to let you sidestep the ramifications we live in the time of the rich merchants, which demolishes the point you’re trying to make about the parable.

Rich merchants was not given as a sign by Jesus of His return.

Now, let’s add your evasion of the syntax and grammar of Matthew 24:1-3. Christ draws his disciples’ attention to the temple in their time and says, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” He’s addressing the temple before them, not one in the future. Later, when they arrive at the Mount of Olives, the disciples ask Christ, “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” Futurists ignore the grammar and syntax that confirm Christ was speaking of the temple in the first century to promote their fables about a hypothetical one yet to be built.

It's a 2 fold question but largely focused around Jesus' return, which the disciples knew from Daniel, the Temple would be defiled in connection to the end of the world. They connected those two things happening together. Jesus did not correct them. Because in fact, yes, the 2nd Temple would be destroyed, but eschatologically, a temple will be defiled shortly before the coming of the Lord.

Both are true, and Jews are seeking to build a 3rd temple now, a point that seems to escape most preterists' and historicists' notice

Let’s consider the parable. It’s crucial to understand that God concluded his dealings with the Old Covenant people when Christ inaugurated the New Covenant. Now, he interacts with them under the New Covenant, which fulfills what Amos 9 predicted, including their sifting by the nations. As the mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24), Christ has brought about a significant change. In Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. The hypothesis that God will resume his mediation over the Old Covenant people when Christ returns implies that the Old Covenant is still in effect, a notion that Hebrews unequivocally refutes.

Your first point fails muster, as the Old Testament contains many passages dealing with the second coming. It is flawed hermeneutics to consider the Old Testament all stuff that ended before Christ.
The fact that Jesus has NOT fulfilled all of the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies is one of the reasons Jews do not accept Him as Messiah, the other being they are ignorant/blind about the passages that do show that the Messiah is in fact God (Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:13-14) and that Messiah would die for our sins (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:26). A second coming is understood by Christians to fulfill what is promised in the Old Testament.

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:9)​

Under the first covenant, God primarily interacted with Jacob’s descendants, while under the second, he now deals with the Church. It’s important to note that under the second covenant, God does not deal with the children of Israel separately. The children of Israel are saved under the New Covenant in this dispensation, not the Old. This crucial distinction means that prophecy about this age is about the Church, not the Jews in Palestine. As I previously mentioned, Ezekiel 37:21-23 asserts that Christ is king over Israel when they are gathered, which implies that Zionism is an attempt by the tenants who were rejected to seize the kingdom by force. The Gentiles who joined with them in this dispensation are gathered when Israel is gathered,

For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. (Isaiah 14:1)​

I can see why you’re so reluctant to confront the fact that we live in the time of the rich merchants, as it destroys futurism and preterism.

it doesn't though, rich merchants have existed for a very long time.
Hundreds of years of trend is not prophecy. Jesus said fulfilment would take place within a short period of time.

again my point about the road signs. Road signs become more useful the closer you are to your destination. Putting road signs hundreds of miles away is of limited use in preparing to reach your destination.
Road signs within 5-10 miles are useful.
God has prepared a bunch of road signs leading up to the destination that come more frequently the closer we get.

This actually plays into how Irenaeus says to deal with 666, giving that it is indeed a number that can be calculated from the Antichrist's name, but not to try using it until the time when you have the 10 Kings and 3 of the Kings are being terrorized by someone. You'd use 666 then to confirm the identity you suspect.

We don't have the 10 king's currently, and so.. right now 666 won't give us anything useful.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Rich merchants was not given as a sign by Jesus of His return.

The Revelation is the testimony of Christ, which makes all the phenomena signs by Christ for us. Furthermore, the rich merchants are not symbolic and need no interpretation as to what they mean. They literally mean rich merchants. Furthermore, they are connected to the harlot Babylon, one of the antagonists at Christ’s return. Christ calls his people out of the harlot Babylon so they don’t partake of the final plagues. The fact that we live in the time of the rich merchants vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

It's a 2 fold question but largely focused around Jesus' return, which the disciples knew from Daniel, the Temple would be defiled in connection to the end of the world. They connected those two things happening together. Jesus did not correct them. Because in fact, yes, the 2nd Temple would be destroyed, but eschatologically, a temple will be defiled shortly before the coming of the Lord.

Both are true, and Jews are seeking to build a 3rd temple now, a point that seems to escape most preterists' and historicists' notice

The futurists’ explanations do a disservice to the Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic for all their bluster about the rule. The original intent and meaning of Daniel have the city and temple destroyed at the time the Messiah is cut off,

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (Daniel 9:26)​

History follows what is written in Daniel. The abomination of desolation is commensurate with the Messiah being cut off, not his return. As we know, prophecy is best understood after it has been fulfilled, which affirms the abomination of desolation was a first advent event, a protracted phenomenon that vindicates historicism. The succeeding verse in Daniel also connects the abomination of desolation with Christ being cut off, insomuch as the sin offerings ceased to be acceptable to God when Christ died for our sins, which Hebrews affirms,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:16-18)​

Luke 21:20 and Matthew 20:7 support the abomination of desolation is commensurate with Christ’s death and the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD.

Any attempt to promote 2 Thessalonians 2 with the desolation in question is thwarted by the detail that the iniquity was already working in Paul’s time. The point is that desolations are presented as a protracted phenomenon, which vindicates historicism and destroys the futurist's and preterists' perceptions and use of “this generation” in the OD.

Your first point fails muster, as the Old Testament contains many passages dealing with the second coming. It is flawed hermeneutics to consider the Old Testament all stuff that ended before Christ.
The fact that Jesus has NOT fulfilled all of the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies is one of the reasons Jews do not accept Him as Messiah, the other being they are ignorant/blind about the passages that do show that the Messiah is in fact God (Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:13-14) and that Messiah would die for our sins (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:26). A second coming is understood by Christians to fulfill what is promised in the Old Testament.

I never said anything about the Old Testament. You’re making up strawman arguments. What I did say is that the “Old Covenant” ended. There’s a huge difference; you hear what you want to hear to avoid seeing the folly of your views.

Once again, try to stay on point. Christ mediates the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24). In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. The fable that God will mediate over the Old Covenant people when Christ returns asserts the Old Covenant is still in effect, which Hebrews demolishes,

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:9)​

Under the second, God does not deal separately with the children of Israel. By ending the Old Covenant, God fulfilled what Amos 9 prophesied, including the part that Israel would be sifted by the nations. Your perception of the parable is fallacious.

it doesn't though, rich merchants have existed for a very long time.
Hundreds of years of trend is not prophecy. Jesus said fulfilment would take place within a short period of time.

again my point about the road signs. Road signs become more useful the closer you are to your destination. Putting road signs hundreds of miles away is of limited use in preparing to reach your destination.
Road signs within 5-10 miles are useful.
God has prepared a bunch of road signs leading up to the destination that come more frequently the closer we get.

This actually plays into how Irenaeus says to deal with 666, giving that it is indeed a number that can be calculated from the Antichrist's name, but not to try using it until the time when you have the 10 Kings and 3 of the Kings are being terrorized by someone. You'd use 666 then to confirm the identity you suspect.

We don't have the 10 king's currently, and so.. right now 666 won't give us anything useful.

You might want to read a book or two about the rise of the merchants. The merchants held high status in all the pagan empires, the beasts in Daniel, like Rome. But when the Roman Empire fell, so did the status of the merchants, who were part of the feudal society controlled by the papacy. They were considered a persona non grata in feudal society because they were looked upon with suspicion, insomuch as it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Since the return of Christ relates to their rise and the harlot Babylon, it can’t be avoided that the fact we live in the time of the rich merchants vindicates historicism. Their rise exposes futurism and preterism, insomuch that apostate Protestantism facilitated the rise of the merchants, which makes them the harlot Babylon and destroys the futurists' and preterists’ dogmas.

Regarding your “allegory” about road signs, it’s best to relate that long trips won’t take long for children to encourage them to behave. God did that with the seventy weeks or 490 days, which were actually 490 years. God concealed the delay in imminence to prevent the evil servants from taking advantage of it.

 

[Jamdoc]

The Revelation is the testimony of Christ, which makes all the phenomena signs by Christ for us. Furthermore, the rich merchants are not symbolic and need no interpretation as to what they mean. They literally mean rich merchants. Furthermore, they are connected to the harlot Babylon, one of the antagonists at Christ’s return. Christ calls his people out of the harlot Babylon so they don’t partake of the final plagues. The fact that we live in the time of the rich merchants vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

I meant the Olivet Discourse. Jesus didn't give people being rich as a sign, because there have always been wealthy merchants.

The futurists’ explanations do a disservice to the Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic for all their bluster about the rule. The original intent and meaning of Daniel have the city and temple destroyed at the time the Messiah is cut off,

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (Daniel 9:26)​

Unto the end desolations are determined..
yeah, since Israel was scattered, Israel has been desolate, few people lived there, until recently.
Note the temple is destroyed. Desolations are determined.....

and THEN the 70th week happens, with the abomination of desolation, taking place in a temple or tabernacle, as sacrifices can't just be performed anywhere.

History follows what is written in Daniel. The abomination of desolation is commensurate with the Messiah being cut off, not his return. As we know, prophecy is best understood after it has been fulfilled, which affirms the abomination of desolation was a first advent event, a protracted phenomenon that vindicates historicism. The succeeding verse in Daniel also connects the abomination of desolation with Christ being cut off, insomuch as the sin offerings ceased to be acceptable to God when Christ died for our sins, which Hebrews affirms,

Jesus gave the Abomination of Desolation as the most important sign prefacing His return, and the Parable of the Fig Tree to stress that it'd be a short time, not thousands of years of Great Tribulation.

and again, things are progressing in that direction. The Jews want to build a temple, and the entire world is turning against the Jews.
We're progressing towards a one world government (Bablyon), and a cashless economy.
Things are accelerating, and converging. Even a year ago, the world was not against Israel like this.

Jesus said all this stuff would be like birth pangs, the illustration is that the closer you get to the birth the more intense and more frequent they'd get.
Acceleration, convergence.
Since 2020, those Rich Merchants you talk about, have gotten more wealth and more political influence than they've ever had before, nobody talked about the WEF or Davos before that
Acceleration, convergence

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:16-18)​

Luke 21:20 and Matthew 20:7 support the abomination of desolation is commensurate with Christ’s death and the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD.

Any attempt to promote 2 Thessalonians 2 with the desolation in question is thwarted by the detail that the iniquity was already working in Paul’s time. The point is that desolations are presented as a protracted phenomenon, which vindicates historicism and destroys the futurist's and preterists' perceptions and use of “this generation” in the OD.

Yes, it was already at work, but the road signs God gave us to the return of Jesus were not in the first century, but increasing road signs as we got closer. That's a concept you ignore. Paul wrote that the Day of the Lord would come upon the world as a thief but we would be anticipating it,
We'd see the signs along the way.

I never said anything about the Old Testament. You’re making up strawman arguments. What I did say is that the “Old Covenant” ended. There’s a huge difference; you hear what you want to hear to avoid seeing the folly of your views.

I was referring to Amos 8 as being about eschatological events, you dismissed it as already being fulfilled before Christ came, which is common for a lot of people even futurists to believe that the Old Testament is all stuff before Christ. Without realizing there's a lot of second coming prophecy in the OT.

Once again, try to stay on point. Christ mediates the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24). In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. The fable that God will mediate over the Old Covenant people when Christ returns asserts the Old Covenant is still in effect, which Hebrews demolishes,

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:9)​

Under the second, God does not deal separately with the children of Israel. By ending the Old Covenant, God fulfilled what Amos 9 prophesied, including the part that Israel would be sifted by the nations. Your perception of the parable is fallacious.

Incorrect, they would be sifted by the nations, but then be brought back into their land, in unbelief, while profaning God's name, according to Ezekiel 36.
They would be given a new heart later.

You might want to read a book or two about the rise of the merchants. The merchants held high status in all the pagan empires, the beasts in Daniel, like Rome. But when the Roman Empire fell, so did the status of the merchants, who were part of the feudal society controlled by the papacy. They were considered a persona non grata in feudal society because they were looked upon with suspicion, insomuch as it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Since the return of Christ relates to their rise and the harlot Babylon, it can’t be avoided that the fact we live in the time of the rich merchants vindicates historicism. Their rise exposes futurism and preterism, insomuch that apostate Protestantism facilitated the rise of the merchants, which makes them the harlot Babylon and destroys the futurists' and preterists’ dogmas.

Regarding your “allegory” about road signs, it’s best to relate that long trips won’t take long for children to encourage them to behave. God did that with the seventy weeks or 490 days, which were actually 490 years. God concealed the delay in imminence to prevent the evil servants from taking advantage of it.

Jesus said these things would take place in a short period of time, not centuries.

 

[RandyPNW]

Irenaeus interpreted 666 as a Greek Gematria number, but cautioned against trying to use it until a specific time...

It seems to me that yes, he used "666" as a Gematria number, but identified it not as a specific name, but more as a reference to Antichrist issuing out of the Roman tradition. "666" lined up with "Latin king," meaning that Antichrist will be a Latin king. I sometimes post this message that I posted quite some time ago....

There are many speculations, almost as old as the Bible text itself, regarding the meaning of 666 or to whom it is referencing. The Catholic Church states that Irenaeus (130 - 202 A.D.), an early church "father," wrote about whom this number might reference. He stated that the Greek word "Lateinos," when given their corresponding Greek values and added up (30 + 1 + 330 + 5 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 200), equals 666. The word itself means "Latin man."

https://www.[bless and do not curse...o not curse]/prophecy/what-does-666-mean.html

Lateinos is perhaps the equivalent of Latino. That is, the Antichrist will be Latin, or Roman.

King Lateinos was the founder of Rome and the Roman Empire. In the Greek, every letter has a numerical value. The numerical value for “Lateinos” is 666. Therefore, the beast is clearly identified as the Roman Empire, as the number 666 identifies the founder of the Roman Empire–Lateinos.

What is the Number of the Beast? – Church of the Eternal God

I don't believe any of the Church Fathers believed Nero was 666 or the Antichrist.

See this is where I think a writing like Irenaeus is valuable. If it had been partially fulfilled in the first century, Irenaeus would write about what was fulfilled.
Instead Irenaeus treated the entire 70th week as yet future for him. That's a pretty strong blow I believe against any partial fulfillment of the 70th week or Olivet Discourse... that the Early Church after 70AD still looked at them as future events.

Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus were two among the vast majority who held to a different view of Daniel's 70th Week. They are the exceptions not the rule. They thought the 70th Week was still future whereas the vast number of early Church Fathers believed the 70th Week was fulfilled in the generation of Jesus.

So I don't base my beliefs on Irenaeus, although I agree with his Chiliasm and many other things he wrote about. His eschatology, other than his Premillennialism, is suspect.

Luke 21 makes is very clear to me that the "Great Tribulation" is the entire NT age in which the Jewish People are punished, excepting a small minority who convert to Christianity. During this age-long period of Jewish Tribulation Christians also suffer from both unbelieving Jews and pagans all across the world. It is a time of tribulation, therefore, for both the Jewish People and Christians. This is an age that precedes the full unveiling of the Kingdom of God on earth. If there are any kingdoms devoted to God's Kingdom on earth today it is purely temporary.

These are just my views. I appreciate your posts on this, as well as your own personal views. Thank you.

 

[Jamdoc]

It seems to me that yes, he used "666" as a Gematria number, but identified it not as a specific name, but more as a reference to Antichrist issuing out of the Roman tradition. "666" lined up with "Latin king," meaning that Antichrist will be a Latin king. I sometimes post this message that I posted quite some time ago....

There are many speculations, almost as old as the Bible text itself, regarding the meaning of 666 or to whom it is referencing. The Catholic Church states that Irenaeus (130 - 202 A.D.), an early church "father," wrote about whom this number might reference. He stated that the Greek word "Lateinos," when given their corresponding Greek values and added up (30 + 1 + 330 + 5 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 200), equals 666. The word itself means "Latin man."

https://www.[bless and do not curse...o not curse]/prophecy/what-does-666-mean.html

Lateinos is perhaps the equivalent of Latino. That is, the Antichrist will be Latin, or Roman.

King Lateinos was the founder of Rome and the Roman Empire. In the Greek, every letter has a numerical value. The numerical value for “Lateinos” is 666. Therefore, the beast is clearly identified as the Roman Empire, as the number 666 identifies the founder of the Roman Empire–Lateinos.

What is the Number of the Beast? – Church of the Eternal God

I don't believe any of the Church Fathers believed Nero was 666 or the Antichrist.

Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus were two among the vast majority who held to a different view of Daniel's 70th Week. They are the exceptions not the rule. They thought the 70th Week was still future whereas the vast number of early Church Fathers believed the 70th Week was fulfilled in the generation of Jesus.

So I don't base my beliefs on Irenaeus, although I agree with his Chiliasm and many other things he wrote about. His eschatology, other than his Premillennialism, is suspect.

Luke 21 makes is very clear to me that the "Great Tribulation" is the entire NT age in which the Jewish People are punished, excepting a small minority who convert to Christianity. During this age-long period of Jewish Tribulation Christians also suffer from both unbelieving Jews and pagans all across the world. It is a time of tribulation, therefore, for both the Jewish People and Christians. This is an age that precedes the full unveiling of the Kingdom of God on earth. If there are any kingdoms devoted to God's Kingdom on earth today it is purely temporary.

These are just my views. I appreciate your posts on this, as well as your own personal views. Thank you.

which writers believed in 70AD being the fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel that'd be Irenaeus or Hippolytus' contemporaries, I've always heard that the Early Church was historical premillennialist, largely post trib (potentially with pre-wrath elements but key thing is being persecuted during Antichrist's reign) until Origen and Augustine derailed everything into Amillennialism.

 

[TheCabinetGuy]

It seems to me that yes, he used "666" as a Gematria number, but identified it not as a specific name, but more as a reference to Antichrist issuing out of the Roman tradition. "666" lined up with "Latin king," meaning that Antichrist will be a Latin king. I sometimes post this message that I posted quite some time ago....

There are many speculations, almost as old as the Bible text itself, regarding the meaning of 666 or to whom it is referencing. The Catholic Church states that Irenaeus (130 - 202 A.D.), an early church "father," wrote about whom this number might reference. He stated that the Greek word "Lateinos," when given their corresponding Greek values and added up (30 + 1 + 330 + 5 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 200), equals 666. The word itself means "Latin man."

https://www.[bless and do not curse...o not curse]/prophecy/what-does-666-mean.html

Lateinos is perhaps the equivalent of Latino. That is, the Antichrist will be Latin, or Roman.

King Lateinos was the founder of Rome and the Roman Empire. In the Greek, every letter has a numerical value. The numerical value for “Lateinos” is 666. Therefore, the beast is clearly identified as the Roman Empire, as the number 666 identifies the founder of the Roman Empire–Lateinos.

What is the Number of the Beast? – Church of the Eternal God

I don't believe any of the Church Fathers believed Nero was 666 or the Antichrist.

Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus were two among the vast majority who held to a different view of Daniel's 70th Week. They are the exceptions not the rule. They thought the 70th Week was still future whereas the vast number of early Church Fathers believed the 70th Week was fulfilled in the generation of Jesus.

So I don't base my beliefs on Irenaeus, although I agree with his Chiliasm and many other things he wrote about. His eschatology, other than his Premillennialism, is suspect.

Luke 21 makes is very clear to me that the "Great Tribulation" is the entire NT age in which the Jewish People are punished, excepting a small minority who convert to Christianity. During this age-long period of Jewish Tribulation Christians also suffer from both unbelieving Jews and pagans all across the world. It is a time of tribulation, therefore, for both the Jewish People and Christians. This is an age that precedes the full unveiling of the Kingdom of God on earth. If there are any kingdoms devoted to God's Kingdom on earth today it is purely temporary.

These are just my views. I appreciate your posts on this, as well as your own personal views. Thank you.

The real way to calculate the number of the beast is:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+32+33+34+35+36=666

It has to do with the 36 decans of the zodiac. The sun god was the chief over all of them and worshipped as the supreme god. 666 is also known as the "grand number of the sun." The infamous mark of the beast is the symbol of the occultic sun. It has nothing to do with the Emperor Nero or Barack Obama. The "man" that it is referring to is Nimrod, because after his death he was deified as the sun god.

 

[Jamdoc]

The real way to calculate the number of the beast is:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+32+33+34+35+36=666

It has to do with the 36 decans of the zodiac. The sun god was the chief over all of them and worshipped as the supreme god. 666 is also known as the "grand number of the sun." The infamous mark of the beast is the symbol of the occultic sun. It has nothing to do with the Emperor Nero or Barack Obama. The "man" that it is referring to is Nimrod, because after his death he was deified as the sun god.

Irenaeus had it as the number of a name through Greek Gematria (and this was passed down by Polycarp and passed down by John as far as I know), but had a specific time to try calculating it, like if you calculate it randomly you'd get nothing useful, or you can game the system IE coming up with Ronald Reagan as Antichrist or whatever.

What Irenaeus taught was you wait for the 10 kings, and wait for the 10 kings to be terrorized by someone, check his name in Greek and calculate the number of his name, if it's 666, it's a bit of confirmation that this is really the guy, but the real confirmation is the Abomination of Desolation.
2 Thessalonians 2 indicates that's his 100% revelation.