ARCHIVE: The "Great tribulation" and the Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

I COMPLETELY reject that assertion.

I would say that the basic premise of this thread has never been "dealt with" in that not a SINGLE ECF believed that the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD.

But that is the nature of debate. People sometimes have different definitions of "dealt with".

But again, I would say that is simply a blanket statement by you. Many proofs and arguments and explanations, both historical and Scriptural, have been presented and been met with virtually nothing from the oppositon other than basically, Uh Uh, and a restatement of the original rebutted point. Debates are supposed to progress by each side substantively dealing with each other's arguments. That has not happened here in any meaningful way whatsoever on this thread.

And a shell game is being played (and I am not suggesting intentional deceit or bad motives or anything of the sort). Your above statement that NOT one ECF believed that the Great Trib happened in 70AD is wrong. Eusebius clearly did. But then you will say well Eusebius is too late.. and keep switching the stakes. I have provided quotes that certainly lend credence that many ECF even earlier did in fact hold this belief, but since they did not describe what you have predetermined the Great Trib must mean (and you never dealt with my Scriptural proofs on that phrase), you have dismissed them out of hand. But that is simply defining away your opposition, not defeating them, and is illegitimate. And as I have demonstrated the ECF is a two=headed viper... they believed that the Church was Israel... and there is NO ECF evidence your unique views on two gospels. You have never addressed my counter-challenges to your position in that regard and in fact have not answer very many direct questions that I have made to you and yet expect me to answer each of your. There is little or no reciprocity here.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee,

Thanks for your admission that you misunderstood my argument on the other thread.It only proves that at one time or another all of us demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And you're welcome.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

smilax,

You say that you are waiting for some answers concerning the relevance of what the church fathers had to say.

First of all,I have always said that the final authority for the truth of God is the Holy Scriptures.However,in my discussions with the preterists I have found that although they say the same thing,you couldn´t tell it by their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

For instance,the Scriptures make it plain that at some point in time the Lord will fight against all the nations that come against Jerusalem and He Himself says that "in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9;14:2,3).

However,those who say that their final authority is also the Scriptures say that this event refers to the time in 70AD when Jerusalem was utterly destroyed.I cannot believe that that event could ever be in reference to a time when the Lord says He will fight and destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

But no matter how much I protest that they are wrong,they will still not hear.

So since I believe that their beliefs are based on the teaching of man I have given them some testimony from the earliest Christians.

For instance,their own site,the preteristarchive.com says,"Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyons,companion of Polycarp,John´s pupil..."

So they admit that Irenaeus and Polycarp were companions,and that Polycarp studied under John,the very author of the Revelation.If there is any man´s testimony outside of the Apostles that we can trust in regard to things like the antichrist,it would be Irenaeus.And it would be pure folly to even assert that Irenaeus would not know whether or not the events concerning the antichrist had come to pass or not.

In Book Five,Chapter XXV,"The Fruad,Pride,and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist as Described by Daniel and Paul",Irenaeus writes that the reign of Antichrist REMAINS IN THE FUTURE:

"1.And not only by the particulars already mentioned,but also by means of the EVENTS WHICH SHALL OCCUR IN THE TIME OF ANTICHRIST is it shown..."

2....in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:'But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place...

We also read the following:

"But he (John) indicates the number of the name now (the mark of the beast),that WHEN THIS MAN COMES we may avoid him,being aware of who he is"("Against Heresies 5.30.4).

"For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just,which takes place AFTER THE COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST,and the destruction of ALL NATIONS under his rule..."("Against Heresies",5.35.1).

Not only that,but there is not any evidence that even one of the Christians who lived in the second century believed that the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" had come and gone.

So the reason I started this thread was in the hope that if they will not believe the plain meaning of the prophecies of Zechariah,at least they might believe the testimony of the earliest church fathers.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

However,those who say that their final authority is also the Scriptures say that this event refers to the time in 70AD when Jerusalem was utterly destroyed.I cannot believe that that event could ever be in reference to a time when the Lord says He will fight and destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Jerry that is a mischaracterization of everything I have ever said to you, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is inadvertant and that you will await my futher clarification.

And where in the Bible does it say that the antichrist will have anything to do with the Great Tribulation? It doesn't. You have assumed that. The phrase "great trib" is taken from the Olivet Discourse and I provided proof that some ECF did in fact hold that event as past. You have not dealt with that or substantively interacted with the arguments presented in any other way than simply repeating your first rebutted points.

 

[jpholding]

Here is how it works:

Here is how it works:

Jerry understands decontextualizations as honoring to God and keeps changing the subject. He and the others have been shown countless times that closeness in time is no guarantee of accuracy and that the patristics did and could make horrendous mistakes. To this the answer has been: " ".

Knight refuses to answer arguments and keeps his visor shut.

Yash hit and run like a refrigerator magnet, speaking vaguely of "context" but not actually arguing anything about it.

While I was out at the library this morning, that's the sum and total of the opposition for the hours and three pages while I was gone.

No wonder productivity in America in on the decline.

JP

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

But again, I would say that is simply a blanket statement by you.

Some blankets are so very helpful!

You continue...

Many proofs and arguments and explanations, both historical and Scriptural, have been presented and been met with virtually nothing from the oppositon other than basically, Uh Uh, and a restatement of the original rebutted point. Debates are supposed to progress by each side substantively dealing with each other's arguments. That has not happened here in any meaningful way whatsoever on this thread.

I could make an identical assertion to what you have posted above.

You continue...

And a shell game is being played (and I am not suggesting intentional deceit or bad motives or anything of the sort). Your above statement that NOT one ECF believed that the Great Trib happened in 70AD is wrong. Eusebius clearly did. But then you will say well Eusebius is too late..

Of course! And it would be completely relevant for me or Jerry to point out that fact! That is the very premise of this thread! The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Here is how it works:

Re: Here is how it works:

Originally posted by jpholding
Knight refuses to answer arguments and keeps his visor shut.

Say what?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee,

In case you missed it,I will repost the words of Irenaeus concering the Lord´s words as spoken in the Olivet Discourse:

"...in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,AS THE LORD ALSO DECLARES: 'But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains;and he who is upon the house-top,let him come down to take anything out of the house:for there shall then be great hardship,such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now,nor ever shall be"("Adversus haereses"Book V,#2).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[jpholding]

You heard me, Sir Tinpants ;-)

You heard me, Sir Tinpants ;-)

Say what?

The number of things I have put down here that you and Jerry have ignored could make a list longer than the Green Giant's scarf.

Of course! And it would be completely relevant for me or Jerry to point out that fact! That is the very premise of this thread! The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

CLANG! There goes that visor again...I hear spinning noises...you want to move on, go right ahead. You've been shown that patristic ignorance is irrelevant because:

1) Not all patristics were so ignorant and did see some fulfillment.
2) They did not know Hebrew and could not be expected to have known Hebrew figures of speech that are the whole key to interpreting Matt. 24 and other related passages/books. Once again I recommend Caird's book, provided you are not too busy with the ones with Waldo in them. Or you can do like Jerry and pretend to honor God by reading the text newspaper-style. God loves ostriches.
3) They made mistakes on other issues, such as the efficacy of baptism -- coincidentally, another area where lack of knowledge of Hebrew thought hurt them. Hmph.
4) As a whole people are not very bright even at close quarters. Duh, what's that say? Don't steal that ox? Where do I find one? :doh:
5) You're pretty much begging the question of what the GT consists of anyway.

Offhand that's it. As a moderator of course you can stamp your steel toes and demand a fiat conclusion all you want. Just don't post a link to anything. I'll send you a lollipop, what flavor you want?

Hey Dee Dee, these guys ready to be taken out of the oven and carved yet?

JP

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Of course! And it would be completely relevant for me or Jerry to point out that fact! That is the very premise of this thread! The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

First, of all why would the rest of the world record the events of the Great Tribulation happening? Do you really think that the American Indians or the Mayans or the Aborigines or the Chinese cared about the destruction of Jerusalem? When you can answer that question we can move on. Second, I and others provided ECF and other historical evidence. The ball is in your court. You really need to stop riding on Jerry's coat-tails for two reasons, one, it is embarassing for you, and second, I would really like to hear what you have to say that is substantive rather than posturing.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

5) You're pretty much begging the question of what the GT consists of anyway.

Bingo!!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

jpholding,

I am very much interested in your earlier remarks that certain verses contained in the prophetic writings are "ancient 'trash talk'--no more."

Are you saying that you do not believe that the books which contain those words are not inspired of God?

I honestly want you to explain more fully your words that these verses are "trash talk".

The reason I ask is the fact that there are many people who say that the book of Daniel is NOT inspired of God.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jerry I hope you do not mind me jumping in.... of course he believes they are inspired, why would you think otherwise? If I said certain words were poetic symbolism, would that mean that they are not inspired? No. He was simply identifying a literary device. One that I in fact demonstrated to Knight by showing other verses where such hyperbolic exaggeration was used, which verses remain unanswered by said Knight.

 

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Knight
Some blankets are so very helpful!

Wow what a come back. JP Quit while your ahead :rollseyes:

Originally posted by Knight

The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

Why should we concede? You have yet to show why the earliest church fathers opinion is relevant in this matter. On the other hand us preterist have shown the following:

1) Some of the ECFs did support a fulfillment of the OD in AD70 (but they were not early enough for you, how convenient)

2) Many of the ECFs were inconsistent with there eschatology.

3) Many (most, all) of the ECFs made mistakes much worse than a bad eschatology.

4) Most of the arguments present by Dispensationalist in this thread assume that the "Great" Tribulation is a world wide all life as we know it affecting event. Of course the ECF never said that(world wide thing) happened. It did not happen. No preterist ever said it did.

5) The preterist have given reason why we believe that the tribulation in the OD and Rev. was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. These reasons have been summarily ignored.

I could keep going, but I grow weary of repeating myself.

No one has so much as stated why the alleged lack of the ECF mention of the AD 70 being the "Great" tribulation should amount to a hill of beans.

Why not just concede the point so that we could move on?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let us examine more Scriptual passages and see if the events surrounding the "great tribulation" invole the whole world,or just Jerusalem.Anyone reading these verses can see how similiar the events described by Joel are to the events described by the Lord Jesus in His Olivet Discourse:

"And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:blood,and fire,and plillars of smoke...and it shall come to pass that whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be delivered;for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance,as the Lord hath said,and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.For,behold,in those days,and IN THAT TIME,when I shall bring the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,I will GATHER ALL NATIONS,and will bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat,and will judge them there for My people and for My heritage,Israel,whom they have scattered among the nations,and parted My land"(Joel2:30-32;3:1-2).

Here we can see the same events described as the "signs in the heavens"(Mt.24:29) and the judgment of the nations"(Mt.25:31-33).

Notice that the prophet Joel is implicit where he says that in the same time period when the signs shall appear in the heavens that the judgments of ALL the nations shall take place.

Is there any preterist that will tell us when this judgment of ALL NATIONS took place in the time around 70AD?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
jpholding,

I am very much interested in your earlier remarks that certain verses contained in the prophetic writings are "ancient 'trash talk'--no more."

Are you saying that you do not believe that the books which contain those words are not inspired of God?

I honestly want you to explain more fully your words that these verses are "trash talk".

The reason I ask is the fact that there are many people who say that the book of Daniel is NOT inspired of God.

In His grace,--Jerry

Hey Jerry, try reading JP in context (why do I even bother)

In today's, very literal society making exaggerated claims about yourself, your team or anything else is called "trash talk".

In the Ancient Near East, making exaggerated claims was a common and accepted way of communicating.

If I am not mistaken (and correct me if I am wrong) JP was trying to make an analogy that modern literalist readers would understand. (didn't work did it JP)

I have read much of JP's work, and I have no doubt that he has great respect for the entire Bible.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

As far as that Joel passage, we have the Apostle Peter telling us that it was being fulfilled in the first century. Hmm, do I believe Jerry or Peter? Guess who I am going to pick.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Well,Dee Dee,if these verses were ALL fulfilled at the day of Pentecost,then tell us when ALL THE NATIONS were judged.

But if I remember you correctly,you yourself said that the words of the Lord at Matthew 25:31-33 have not yet been fulfilled.

Isn´t that what you said previously?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Faramir
1) Some of the ECFs did support a fulfillment of the OD in AD70 (but they were not early enough for you, how convenient)

Faramir, with all due respect the very premise of this thread is that the earliest church fathers did not record the events 70AD as being the great Tribulation.

2) Many of the ECFs were inconsistent with there eschatology.

This point would help neither side of the argument.

3) Many (most, all) of the ECFs made mistakes much worse than a bad eschatology.

We all agree.... but something as important as the Great Tribulation should get at least some notice.

4) Most of the arguments present by Dispensationalist in this thread assume that the "Great" Tribulation is a world wide all life as we know it affecting event. Of course the ECF never said that(world wide thing) happened. It did not happen. No preterist ever said it did.

The "localized Great Tribulation" theory is comical. "All" may not mean "All" but it should most certainly mean at least "some", don't ya think? One third may not really mean one third but it certainly should mean more than one five hundredth dont ya think?

5) The preterist have given reason why we believe that the tribulation in the OD and Rev. was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. These reasons have been summarily ignored.

They have not been ignored in the least. They have been rejected! As Dee Dee so rightly points out you shouldn't overstate your case, it makes you look silly.