More thoughts for the Holy Ghostbusters
Posted by Jerry Shugart on 01-17-2003 06:37 PM:
The following is the testimony of several of the early church fathers in regard to the “great tribulation” and the coming of the antichrist. First, we will examine the teaching of Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp, who was a pupil of the Apostle John.
Surely Polycarp knew whether or not the “great tribulation” had come to pass, especially considering the fact that he studied directly under the man who wrote the Revelation. And if Polycarp knew, then we can rest assured that Irenaeus also knew.And by the words of Irenaeus it is clear that he believed that the “great tribulation” remained in the future,as well as the coming of the antichrist.This means that he did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70:
“…in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:’But when you see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),thenlet those who are in Judea flee into the mountains…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2).
“Daniel too,looking forward to the end of the last kingdom,i.e.,the ten last kings,amongst whom the kingdom of those men SHALL be partitioned,and upon whom the son of perdition SHALL come…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.3).
Hmmm..."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 (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 not come down to take anything out of his 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.” (Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2). You missed a bit, Jerry. Iren doesn't mention The Great Tribulation, only the hardship of the times (the significance of why they were such as had never been seen before had been addressed in earlier posts).
Jerry quoted: Hippolytus (170-236): “Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary,John also speaks this: ‘And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven…’ That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days [the half the week] during which the tyrant IS to reign and persecute the Church (“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 60,61).
But what about this from the same source. Are you gonna trust this guy only when he seems to say something you like?
Hippolytus
61. By "the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant most manifestly
the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the
sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned,
like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a
crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church
was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world.
“And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the
nations;” by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ,
the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man,
becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was
caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always
born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also
declared of old when he said, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at
my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
(“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 61).
Posted by Dee Dee Warren on 01-17-2003 09:48 PM:
Someone conveniently forgot about Eusebius and the fact that nearly all of the early church fathers appropriated the promises to Israel to the Church. Ooops, sorry that this snake bites you too. Some people should know better than to wield two-headed vipers.
^------What she said.
There is continual confusion on the issue, as is manifest here and on other threads, and an inablility to see beyond self imposed boundaries by the dispies.
Firstly by the continual use of the phrase
The Great Tribulation as if it were the name of something, whereas Matthew only records "tribulation great" as descriptive, Mark "tribulation
thlipsis " 13.19,24, and Luke "great distress
anagkh" & "wrath
orgh" 21.23.
Also the surreptitious bringing in of the Antichrist where he is not mentioned, only the Abom Des and
it's standing where it should not.
For instance:
Posted by Jerry Shugart on 01-17-2003 10:32 PM:
Now perhaps someone will explain why the early church fathers were in error when they taught that the prophecies concerning the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" remained in the future and were not fulfilled in 70AD.
After all,they were living at a time not too long after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.Surely if that event represented the "great tribulation" and the coming of the antichrist,they would be aware of such a fact!
But it is not THE GT, only great tribulation/trouble
And later...
Again,Dee Dee did not even attempt to explain how it is possible that those who lived the closest in time to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD did not believe that that event was the "great tribulation" nor did they believe that the antichrist came at that time either.
Just think about it.If the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the "great tribulation",then is it not the strangest thing in all recorded history the fact that those who were the closest in time to that event were not even aware that it was the "great tribulation"?
The reason they did not see it, is because they were not looking for it, and did not expect to find it as so defined by our modern right dividers. You can't read modern dispie expectations back into the ECFs.
Plus the confusion that Matt 24 and Rev refer to the same thing:
Posted by Knight on 01-18-2003 02:43 AM:
Dee Dee correct me if I am wrong... but don't you believe that the events foretold in the book on Revelation happened in 70AD? (or there abouts)
So that people say the following...
Posted by Jerry Shugart on 01-18-2003 07:32 PM:
We are supposed to believe that the following things occured,but yet those who studied under the ones who John taught were not even aware that they had already happened:
"snip"(Rev.13.12-17).
We are supposed to believe that all of these prophecies came to pass,yet those who were so closely connected to the very man who wrote these prophecies were not even aware that they had already taken place!In fact,they were sure that they had not happened!
.
This goes round and round and round, because as soon as someone addresses one point, the dispies run off saying, yeah but what about this - and post another batch of verses, in the vain belief that they are all connected. Why didn't the ECF writers believe the Great Trib happened in 70ad? Because
The Great Trib as dispies figure it is a figment, it does not exist. Why did they not point out Antichrist? Because Antichrist as the dispies figure it is a figment. Why would John refer to the Great Trib? No reason that I can see; Matt Mark and Luke did with ref to Judea, whereas John's gospel may well have been written after the fall of Jerusalem, to serve another purpose - though I am tending to the earlier date for Rev lately.
Before you look for confirmation in the ECFs, you have to prove that your idea of the Great Trib is in fact scriptural, and that you have rightly divided indeed, or else you are just cherry picking quotes - which any of us can do with the ECFs - (for instance the Catholics look to the ECFs for their doctrine of justification. I have Thomas Oden's Justification Reader in which he shows that the ECFs believed in justification by grace through faith alone!)
So, instead of Gang Debate, and Mud-slinging (re the Holocaust, which I consider extremely insensitive and something I would have rebuked had I been a Mod - there goes my nomination out of the window), let's have some reasoned discussion, not megaphone lecturing.
peace in Him
)
