Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: A simple explanation of the millennium

Expand Messages
  • drjenney2
    Seems a bit simplistic to me. It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 11, 2009
      Seems a bit simplistic to me.

      It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.

      Second, wasn't Jesus as smart as us? Why then did he say, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only" (Matt 24:36)?
    • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
      That s the response I sometimes get, but notice I wrote. The point is that the sabbath thousand years is a different day than the one that Satan is held
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 11, 2009
        That's the response I sometimes get, but notice I wrote.

        The point is that the sabbath thousand years is a different day than
        the one that Satan is held captive in. These days and years are not
        fixed in earth time. Salvation is the entrance to the seventh day.
        Therfore the first resurrection is spiritual, and that supports
        Augustinian amillennialism.

        If the six thousand years are viewed in the same way Augustine viewed the millennium, then we don't have worry about Bishop Ussher's chronology. The idea I put forward in my book is that 6000 year, 6 days of creation are an allegorical representation of the Gospel, as asserted by Papias about the creation week.

        Quote from ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
        Author: Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)

        Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantænus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.

        IX.17631763 This fragment, or rather reference, is taken from Anastasius Sinaitia. Routh gives, as another fragment, the repetition of the same statement by Anastasius.

        Alan Fuller,
        Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
        http://www.lulu.com/arfuller



        --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "drjenney2" <drjenney@...> wrote:
        >
        > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
        >
        > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
        >
        > Second, wasn't Jesus as smart as us? Why then did he say, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only" (Matt 24:36)?
        >
      • Wray
        I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by scripture and presents more questions than answers. The problem I have with this reply
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 11, 2009
          I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
          scripture and presents more questions than answers.

          The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
          situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
          billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
          Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
          Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
          you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.

          drjenney2 wrote:
          >
          >
          > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
          >
          > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which
          > flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by
          > Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
          >
          > .
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tom Ricks
          Jack Collins work, Genesis 1 - 4 A Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary has some of the best work I ve seen on the early Genesis passages balancing
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
            Jack Collins work, Genesis 1 - 4 A Linguistic, Literary and Theological
            Commentary has some of the best work I've seen on the early Genesis
            passages balancing creation evidence for the age of the earth and the
            Hebrew text which he finds are not at odds.



            Tom



            ________________________________

            From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wray
            Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:56 PM
            To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the
            millennium





            I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
            scripture and presents more questions than answers.

            The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
            situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
            billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
            Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
            Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
            you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.

            drjenney2 wrote:
            >
            >
            > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
            >
            > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which
            > flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by
            > Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
            >
            > .
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • George F Somsel
            It does appear in some of the apocalyptic literature that they have a view of a world week , i.e. that it is to last a week which consists of 7 1,000 yr
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
              It does appear in some of the apocalyptic literature that they have a view of a "world week", i.e. that it is to last a week which consists of 7 1,000 yr periods.  This is likely the origin of the 1,000 yr period mentioned in Re 20. 
               george
              gfsomsel


              … search for truth, hear truth,
              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
              defend the truth till death.


              - Jan Hus
              _________




              ________________________________
              From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
              To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:20:04 PM
              Subject: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium

               
              That's the response I sometimes get, but notice I wrote.

              The point is that the sabbath thousand years is a different day than
              the one that Satan is held captive in. These days and years are not
              fixed in earth time. Salvation is the entrance to the seventh day.
              Therfore the first resurrection is spiritual, and that supports
              Augustinian amillennialism.

              If the six thousand years are viewed in the same way Augustine viewed the millennium, then we don't have worry about Bishop Ussher's chronology. The idea I put forward in my book is that 6000 year, 6 days of creation are an allegorical representation of the Gospel, as asserted by Papias about the creation week.

              Quote from ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
              Author: Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)

              Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantænus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.

              IX.17631763 This fragment, or rather reference, is taken from Anastasius Sinaitia. Routh gives, as another fragment, the repetition of the same statement by Anastasius.

              Alan Fuller,
              Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
              http://www.lulu com/arfuller

              --- In revelation-list@ yahoogroups. com, "drjenney2" <drjenney@.. .> wrote:
              >
              > Seems a bit simplistic to me.
              >
              > It assumes the earth was created a bit over 6000 years ago, which flies in the evidence of the world around us. It is supported only by Bishop Ussher's rather dubious addition of numbers in the OT.
              >
              > Second, wasn't Jesus as smart as us? Why then did he say, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only" (Matt 24:36)?
              >







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
              I m an amillennialist. I don t think the 6000 years was meant to be literal. For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this statement
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 12, 2009
                I'm an amillennialist. I don't think the 6000 years was meant to be literal. For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this statement in one place when criticizing the heretics.

                • For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words. Heresies, Book II.xxii.i


                --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Wray <wray@...> wrote:
                >
                > I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
                > scripture and presents more questions than answers.
                >
                > The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
                > situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
                > billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
                > Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
                > Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
                > you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.
              • Georg S. Adamsen
                An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you think
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                  An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
                  common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
                  think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
                  that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
                  5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
                  – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
                  views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
                  “published” book by book when he has finished them).



                  It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
                  premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
                  have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
                  helpful!





                  Dr. Georg S. Adamsen

                  Denmark



                  PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
                  institution, if any

                  Fra: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
                  Sendt: 13. september 2009 00:04
                  Til: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Emne: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium





                  I'm an amillennialist. I don't think the 6000 years was meant to be literal.
                  For instance, Irenaeus who is usually considered a chiliast, made this
                  statement in one place when criticizing the heretics.

                  • For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space
                  of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For
                  even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed
                  themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood]
                  according to the mere sound of the words. Heresies, Book II.xxii.i

                  --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com> , Wray <wray@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I agree that /eschaton /makes many leaps that are unsubstantiated by
                  > scripture and presents more questions than answers.
                  >
                  > The problem I have with this reply though, is that we can have both
                  > situations: man was created 6000 ago and the earth was created many
                  > billions of years ago. The reconciliation lies in the time span between
                  > Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the fact that face of the earth was renewed.
                  > Considering that this is a Revelation list I will leave it at this. If
                  > you would like, I can reply off forum and fill in the gap for you.





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
                  I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                    I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who brought chiliasm into the church (Church History, Book III, Chapter XXXIX.12—The Writings of Papias.) Eusebius disagrees with Irenaeus as to whether Papias knew the apostle John personally. He says Papias misunderstood the apostolic accounts which were meant to be understood "mystically." It seems a strange accusation to put on someone who says the creation week represents the Gospel.

                    You have seen the reaction to my post. Everyone assumes I was saying the thousand years was literal. Maybe that is the same assumption made about Papias by later writers. Unfortunately we don't have his original books, but have to judge by the opinion of those who came later. You can see the influence of Papias on Irenaeus (Book V Chapter XXXIII.). Compare that to the later writings of Victorinus (On the Creation of the World). Victorinus speaks of the events in the life of Christ as being related to the creation week.

                    Irenaeus believed the scriptures need a Christian key handled by reliable Christian interpreters (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Karlfried Froehlich). This is a different idea than that of the historical/literal or historical/critical ideas today. It seems unlikely that the book of Revelation was written with the hermeneutical principles of the 18th or 19th century in mind.

                    An outline of Revelation based on the creation/consummation idea, as I put forward in my book, is similar to the "parallel" outline of William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation) with a few exceptions.

                    It may be that Irenaeus was changing his mind about some things. In my own opinion ideas about prophecy were resorting back to a more "Jewish" view during the late second and early third century. For instance compare the interpretations of Revelation 17:10 by Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century, and Victorinus near the beginning of the fourth century.

                    ...And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the
                    Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested
                    from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of
                    the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with
                    Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his
                    Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years."
                    Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000
                    years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says:
                    "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet
                    come." The Interpretation by Hippolytus of Daniel

                    The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse
                    was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before
                    him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius,
                    and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains,
                    under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit.
                    "The other has not yet come," speaks of Nerva; "and when he is
                    come, he will be for a short time," for he did not complete the
                    period of two years. – Victorinus, Commentary on the
                    Apocalypse of the Blessed John

                    It may be that Hippolytus reflects an earlier tradition.


                    Alan Fuller,
                    Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
                    Available at Amazon.com or my web page
                    http://www.lulu.com/arfuller
                    I am not affiliated with any seminary or other educational institution.


                    --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Georg S. Adamsen" <georg@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
                    > common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
                    > think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
                    > that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
                    > 5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
                    > – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
                    > views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
                    > "published" book by book when he has finished them).
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
                    > premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
                    > have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
                    > helpful!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Dr. Georg S. Adamsen
                    >
                    > Denmark
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
                    > institution, if any
                    >
                    >
                  • George F Somsel
                    Apparently you didn t read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                      Apparently you didn't read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such which means that "everyone" did not suppose that you were understanding this literally.  The "world week" was considered to be a succession of 1000 year periods and was thus more paradigmatic than literal.  Note that in Heb a similar relation is established

                       
                      “As in my anger I swore,
                      ‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”
                      though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day—“today”—saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,
                      “Today, if you hear his voice,
                      do not harden your hearts.”
                      8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.
                       
                      The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Heb 4:3-11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
                       george
                      gfsomsel


                      … search for truth, hear truth,
                      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                      defend the truth till death.


                      - Jan Hus
                      _________




                      ________________________________
                      From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
                      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:44:32 AM
                      Subject: [revelation-list] Re: A simple explanation of the millennium

                       
                      I think the whole idea of chiliasm and its relation to the Apocalypse needs careful examination. As you may know, Eusebius identified Papias as the one who brought chiliasm into the church (Church History, Book III, Chapter XXXIX.12—The Writings of Papias.) Eusebius disagrees with Irenaeus as to whether Papias knew the apostle John personally. He says Papias misunderstood the apostolic accounts which were meant to be understood "mystically. " It seems a strange accusation to put on someone who says the creation week represents the Gospel.

                      You have seen the reaction to my post. Everyone assumes I was saying the thousand years was literal. Maybe that is the same assumption made about Papias by later writers. Unfortunately we don't have his original books, but have to judge by the opinion of those who came later. You can see the influence of Papias on Irenaeus (Book V Chapter XXXIII.). Compare that to the later writings of Victorinus (On the Creation of the World). Victorinus speaks of the events in the life of Christ as being related to the creation week.

                      Irenaeus believed the scriptures need a Christian key handled by reliable Christian interpreters (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Karlfried Froehlich). This is a different idea than that of the historical/literal or historical/critical ideas today. It seems unlikely that the book of Revelation was written with the hermeneutical principles of the 18th or 19th century in mind.

                      An outline of Revelation based on the creation/consummati on idea, as I put forward in my book, is similar to the "parallel" outline of William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation) with a few exceptions.

                      It may be that Irenaeus was changing his mind about some things. In my own opinion ideas about prophecy were resorting back to a more "Jewish" view during the late second and early third century. For instance compare the interpretations of Revelation 17:10 by Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century, and Victorinus near the beginning of the fourth century.

                      ...And 6, 000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the
                      Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested
                      from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of
                      the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with
                      Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his
                      Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years."
                      Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000
                      years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says:
                      "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet
                      come." The Interpretation by Hippolytus of Daniel

                      The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse
                      was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before
                      him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius,
                      and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains,
                      under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit.
                      "The other has not yet come," speaks of Nerva; "and when he is
                      come, he will be for a short time," for he did not complete the
                      period of two years. – Victorinus, Commentary on the
                      Apocalypse of the Blessed John

                      It may be that Hippolytus reflects an earlier tradition.

                      Alan Fuller,
                      Author of The Gospel Prophecy: The Bible as Allegory
                      Available at Amazon.com or my web page
                      http://www.lulu com/arfuller
                      I am not affiliated with any seminary or other educational institution.

                      --- In revelation-list@ yahoogroups. com, "Georg S. Adamsen" <georg@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > An interesting quote. I, for one, am in need of more information. It is very
                      > common to see Irenaeus labelled as a premillennialist (or chiliast). Do you
                      > think that your quote proves this label to be wrongly chosen? I am aware
                      > that Bacq has argued quite persuasively in his 1978 book that Heresies Book
                      > 5 is not disparate as scholars thought previously. Some scholars have argued
                      > – if my memory is correct – that Irenaeus developed (or changed) some of his
                      > views, as he wrote the five books (which were, by the way, probably
                      > "published" book by book when he has finished them).
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > It would be really interesting if Irenaeus is not, by and large, a
                      > premillennial, if not for other reasons, then for historical reasons. If you
                      > have some references to both primary and secondary literature, that would be
                      > helpful!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Dr. Georg S. Adamsen
                      >
                      > Denmark
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > PS: I kindly ask all list members to sign their posts with name, place and
                      > institution, if any
                      >
                      >







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
                      Dear George, I apologize. I read your post, and I wasn t including you in everybody. I was including those who responded to my original post last week.
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 21, 2009
                        Dear George,

                        I apologize. I read your post, and I wasn't including you in "everybody." I was including those who responded to my original post last week. Specifically I think that would be drjenney2, and
                        WrayZehrung. Also note that in the original post I gave Hebrews 4:4-9 KJV, so I appreciate you giving it again.

                        Thank you,
                        Alan Fuller

                        --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Apparently you didn't read my reply with sufficient care.  I in no way implied that the 1000 years mentioned in Re 20 were literal or that you assumed such which means that "everyone" did not suppose that you were understanding this literally.  The "world week" was considered to be a succession of 1000 year periods and was thus more paradigmatic than literal.  Note that in Heb a similar relation is established
                        >
                        >  
                        > “As in my anger I swore,
                        > ‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”
                        > though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain dayâ€"“today”â€"saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,
                        > “Today, if you hear his voice,
                        > do not harden your hearts.”
                        > 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.
                        >  
                        > The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Heb 4:3-11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
                        >  george
                        > gfsomsel
                        >
                        >
                        > … search for truth, hear truth,
                        > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                        > defend the truth till death.
                        >
                        >
                        > - Jan Hus
                        > _________
                        >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.