Search results

Hippolytus Rome, Italy (AD 170 – 236) On the End of the World: 3. Isaiah as our first witness, inasmuch as he instructs us in the times of the consummation. What, then, does he say? Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence: the...

As I have repeatedly shown: Amils stand in concert with the ancient Chiliast ECFs in their belief that the Church today is true Israel. The ancient old covenant arrangement that you promote has been eternally abolished. We stand in agreement with these early writers on most matters. Justin...

The ironic thing is: in keeping with the early Amillennialists, many of the early Chiliasts emphasized the New Testament heavenly spiritual hope rather than an earthly carnal one, as most contemporary Premillennialists promote. They spiritualized the fulfillment of Israel's hope, relating it to...

The reason why you cannot find any support for some of the strange aspects of the teaching of the early Chiliasts in Revelation 20 is because they took their support on a future thousand years from apostate Judaism. Papias is widely accepted by historians as the first orthodox Chiliast...

You seem to think, if you fail to produce any evidence but merely keep denying the overwhelming evidential facts it will somehow become a reality. Well, no! That's not how it works. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." You have not proved anything on this thread but...

Your attempts at speaking on behalf of the ECFs and explaining away their beliefs have shown themselves to be dangerous and foolish. They can ably speak for themselves. They explain themselves clearly on these matters. Your position on the other hand is as clear as mud. It is time for you to get...

By who?

You do not seem to know what you believe. What hope is there for the rest of us watching on trying to discern your beliefs? Basically, you have totally backtracked on everything you previously said (without apologizing for it). No wonder. That is because even you know it doesn't make sense. That...

You have a lovely way with words. Name-calling means nothing to me. I have got used to it with you over the years. I care little what you think of me. It is the truth that interests me more. Obviously, frustration at having nothing of historic value to bring to the table is catching up with you...

Hello! You are ducking around the obvious. Nowhere do the early Chiliasts teach the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming as you do. Where is your evidence? Nowhere. All we get is your long boring lectures where you present what you would like them to have said, but don't...

If there is death there will be "weeping" and "crying." Right? Or are these myriads of millennial phonies so stiff-necked that they lose the ability to cry? This is pretty water-tight. Crying is terminated. Tears are over. This correlates with Revelation 21:1-4. The wording of this passage also...

Have a look at what the binding of Satan secures, according to Irenaeus, who you continue to misrepresent. The binding of Satan allowed the devil to be subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. Christ actually "subject him to the power of man" (namely His followers). Sorry that you are...

Satan destroyed at the Second Advent! Irenaeus lists the resurrection at the coming of Christ as the time when the curse is finally removed, incorruption is introduced and death and the devil are eliminated. This climactic portrayal fits consistently with the Chiliast vision of future state...

The Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way "spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house." Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we...

LOL. You would definitely get a medal for the most U-turns in one thread. At this rate of going, it will not be long until you are a full-blown Amil. This alone makes our discussion worthwhile. Irenaeus nowhere attributes the binding of Satan to the second coming. You have absolutely no quotes...

As is usual with you, the opposite is the truth! I actually called out how you were twisting Irenaeus' position to fit your doctrine. You do this with history and with Scripture. Nothing is safe with your inconsistent prejudiced ad-hoc hermeneutics. Anything goes! You have no settled and safe...

Once again, your rebuttal is not based on ancient quotes, but Gumerlock's opinion. You just repeat what others tell you. That is all you have. That is ridiculous. This is the source of your argument. This is how you navigate this subject. If you would take the time to research the ECFs for...

This is simply not true, and you know it. Why do you say such things when you know they are not true? You might as well say the eternal state has arrived now. That is how logical and plausible your reasoning is. After all, the Church is reigning now. In reality, Premils promote a temporal state...

Again, you depend on the research of others. You cannot study the subject for yourself and therefore talk with any confidence. This explains why your arguments are so contradictory. The arguments on that link re AD 381 are unconvincing. Gumerlock refers to this argument highlighting the 1st...

I have never claimed that Premillennialism is heretical. I've only shown how the roots of modern-day Premillennialism emanate from the ancient heretical Premillennialists. Modern-day orthodox Premillennialism cannot be found in the inspired text or in history up until AD240. This is all very...