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

[Dee Dee Warren]

On Jeremiah 25:10, what I posted was a quote from Early Church Father Athanasius, not my own thoughts. And if you read what he wrote carefully, he is not claiming that sentence is a part of Jeremiah 25:10 he is saying his own thought there, apparently conflating several Biblical principles. Interesting though I find, is that his method of interpretation of these events is highly similar to mine in a lot of respects, and Athanasius is certainly a respected ECT who's tireless and zealous defense of the Trinity we are much indebted to.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I see that Jerry has posted selected passages from selected Church fathers. The fact is that the early church had quite an ecclectic and at times highly confusing eschatolgy that was far from developed into any level that would allow such dogmatic statements from either of us. I have abundant testimony that the early church fathers in fact did view the Olivet Discourse (from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation") as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

For example, and with more to follow.....

Chrysostrom - "Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." ( A.D. 347)

Origien - "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem." (3rd Century)

Dee Dee refuses to even answer why the EARLIEST church fathers did not believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD represented the "great tribulation".

Instead,she quotes Chrysostrom,who lived more than TWO HUNDRED years AFTER the men I quoted,and Origen,who lived more than ONE HUNDRED years after the men I quoted.

She would assign equal weight to the testimony of these men,and this despite the fact that some of those who I quoted were the pupils of those who had studied under the author of the Revelation himself,the Apostle John.

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"?

Those who teach the "preterist" method of interpretation would have us throw our reason to the wind and believe their unbelievable idea that an event described as "great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world,no,nor shall ever be" came and went and the earliest church leaders were not even aware that it had come!

And this despite the fact that some of them were pupils of one who had studied directly at the knee of the Apostle John--the very author of the Revelation!

The following event came and went,and even those who had received their teaching from one who had studied directly under John were not even aware that it had already happened:

"...and there shall be time of trouble,such as never was since there was a nation"(Dan.12:1).

How can that be?

None of the preterists have even attempted to answer!And who could blame them?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sigh. I did not post all of the quotes that I have... but since Jerry did quote Tertullian.. here is an interesting nugget from him (and notice he says that the 70 weeks are over):

"Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin."(7) And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader,(8) must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

"Therefore, when these times also were completed, and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place "libations and sacrifices," which thenceforward have not been able to be in that place celebrated; for "the unction," too,(6) was "exterminated" in that place after the passion of Christ. For it had been predicted that the unction should be exterminated in that place; as in the Psalms it is prophesied, "They exterminated my hands and feet."(7) And the suffering of this "extermination" was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads, under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April,(8) on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses.(9) Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, "His blood be upon us, and upon our children;"(10) and, "If thou dismiss him, thou art not a friend of Caesar;"(11) in order that all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And notice this error of Jerry...

Those who lived closest to the time of AD70 and did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70 reads like a whose who of the early church fathers—Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,Cyprian,Cyr
il of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom—the list goes on and on.How could all these men be in error concerning an event that was supposed to occur so close to the time in which they lived?

Notice that he included Chrystom and Cyrprian but I have quotes from them that agree with me. When I quote Chrystom... he lived too late, but when Jerry refers to him he is allegedly on of the creme de le creme. Jerry cannot have it both ways. I also quoted now Terullian... the fact is that the early church had a very confused and muddled eschatology which is demonstrated by the fact that Jerry and I can quote the very same people for both of our views. The fact is that men from the very same period of time had beliefs similar to mine and similar to futurists. The Church then was diverse as is the Church now.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And the fact is also that I do assign equal weight to most of them.. as uninispired though interesting sources. My weight is assigned to the Scriptures.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Of course Dee Dee EVADED the words of Tertullian where he clearly expressed the idea that the Antichrist and his false prophet was not even in existence in 70AD.Instead,she posts some of his words that in no way nullifies his idea.

She just evades the question by using an obscurant argument and hopes that no one will notice.

She even demonstrates how blind she is in this matter when she admits that she assigns equal weight to the teaching of those who were taught directly by John´s disciples with the teaching of those who lived hundreds of years later.

And she has the nerve to say that her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures".

In fact,what she means is that her weight is assigned to her PERVERTED interpretation of the Scriptures.For instance,take the following verse,which is clearly in refernce to the "great tribulation":

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

A few verses later we see Him doing exactly that:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle...then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when he fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

I provided Dee Dee with these verses,and I stated that in 70AD that "no one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed."

In reply,Dee Dee said,"Really??Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist...Again,if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

Has anyone ever read such a nightmare exegesis of Holy Scripture in their lives?The Lord says that He will fight against all the nations that come against Jerusalem and destroy them,but yet in order for her to cling to her false teaching she has the nerve to say that the Lord Jesus fought and lost in Jerusalem in 70AD!!!

So we can see that she will not answer how Irenaeus,who studied under a pupil of John,could have been in error.Instead,she wants us to believe that her final authority is the Holy Scriptures.

And it is obvious that she will TWIST the Scriptures to make them say anything,no matter how profane.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Terullian had as I clearly stated a jumbled eschatology as did almost all of the ECF. Both Jerry and I can find support for our positions in his writings as well as the writings of others. An honest dealing with historical sources will yield no other conclusion. Tertullian clearly stated that he believed that the 70 weeks were over. I did not quote him to show that he was consistent, I quoted him to show that he and I shared some similar ideas as did I and many of the earliest church fathers. Spin-doctoring has no place in honest debate.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

So we can see that she will not answer how Irenaeus,who studied under a pupil of John,could have been in error.Instead,she wants us to believe that her final authority is the Holy Scriptures.

This is just stupid. Irenaeus also believed that Jesus died at fifty years old.....

For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old) and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation. Whom ought we rather to believe? These, being such as they are, or Ptolemy, who never beheld the Apostles, nor ever in his dreams attained to any vestige of an Apostle? (Against Heresies, 2:22:5)

So obviously being a student of John did not preserve him from error.

And again, almost all of the ECF assigned all of the promises to Israel to the Church. Now Jerry has an excuse for that in that he claims that they assigned such great weight to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD that they thought that God permanently cut off Israel. Now anyone with half a noodle can see how this undercuts the argument on this thread. If need be I can painfully point it out......

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes,it is obvious that none of the early church leaders were without error.But it is a huge difference between knowing the age of the Lord when He dies and knowing if the antichrist had come already.

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:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.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!

But some people will people will believe anything.Perhaps Dee Dee,who says that her final authority is the Scriptures,will tell us when these events took place.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

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:

Jerry has got his dancing shoes on, but nothing is new. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus really died in his thirties yet someone who studied under John denies that. Yes. I provided ECF testimony supporting my view. None of them agreed with me completely, and none of them agreed with futurism completely. The ECF had nothing near a developed eschatology and this is the honest, straw-free, assessment of history.

I have clear up this historical spin-doctoring which was my sole goal in bringing up the ECF.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee now says that nothing the early church leaders said can be trusted.She says:

"My weight is assigned to the Scriptures."

That being the case,perhaps she will tell us when these following events took place.Now we can really see if her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures" or not:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I have consistently told you Jerry that my substantial in depth Scriptural wrangling with you is over since you do not hold me to be a sister in Christ. You have mishandled the historical sources and I have proven that which was my sole goal in dealing with this thread of yours. And please provide the quote where I say that nothing the early Church Fathers said can be trusted.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

All I hear are the crickets!!

All I hear are the crickets!!

Dee Dee previously said that her eschatology was not derived from the early church but instead she says that her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures".Earlier she said,"the fact is that the early Church had a very confused and muddled eschatology."

So since the teaching of the early church in these matters cannot be trusted,I asked her to put her money where her mouth is.I asked her (since her eschatology is derived from the Scriptures) to give us her interpretation of the following verse:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious that the events described in these verses have not yet taken place.And since Dee Dee has no place for these events in her eschatology,then she must somehow explain away these verses.

But now she refuses to do this.If her eschatology was based on the Scriptures,then it is obvious that she would have an explanation for these verses.

But instead of answering,she runs away as fast as she can!

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And please provide the quote where I say that nothing the early Church Fathers said can be trusted. Having a confused and muddled eschatology is nothing new, and would describe a great many Christians today. An honest assessment of the historical sources shows that both futurism and preterism have ancient adherents, sometimes within the same person. Thus the argument of history does not work that well against preterism, and I advise against using it. That point has been proven. Contra their muddled eschatology, the ECF were united in assigning the promises of Israel to the Church, including the student of John, Ireaneaus.

And the fact is that I have answered that question to numerous people here at TOL. The truth is that I do not have substantive Scriptural discussions with those who deny that I am saved.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When I used the word "nothing" in regard to what the early church fathers taught it was in reference to the subject of this thread--eschatology.

You yourself say that "the early Church had a very confused and muddled eschatology."

But if you want to argue that their doctrine was NOT muddled,I can quote many statements which demonstrate that their "doctrine" was also muddled.

But that does not change the fact in the least that you say that your eschatology is based on the Scriptures.And when you are given the chance to prove it,you run like a scared rabbit.

You say that you have previously answered the verses I provided.Well,I have never seen an explanation of those verses,and I am sure that others reading this thread now have likewise never read your explanation.

But since you refuse to give an answer,I will provide an example of your "muddled" explanation of the words of prophecy as recorded by Zechariah.The Lord Himself says:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."(Zech.12:9).

And verses that follow show Him doing just that:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;and the city shall be taken...then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

You say that these verses refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (since you have no place for them in your eschatology).You would have the Lord saying that HE will fight against all the nations,but you would have Him fighting in a loosing battle.In response,I said that in 70AD "no one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed."

In your response,you demonstrate your UNBELIEF in what the Holy Scriptures actually say and said:

"Really??Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist...Again,if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

So we can see that in order to cling to your false eschatology you are willing to make the words where the Lord Jesus is seen fighting against the nations that came against Jerusalem into a TOTAL AND COMLETE DEFEAT!!!

You would rather cling to your false teaching,even if it is at the expense of the integrity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And now you are given an opportunity to give us your interpretation of other Scriptual passages that do not fit into your little man-made eschatology and you refuse.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I thank you then for revising your statement in order to correct your incorrect assertion that I said that NOTHING the ECF said could be trusted. But you still are inaccurate because I never said their eschatological statements could not be "trusted" either. I said that they were muddled, and thus could not be dogmatically used to support either preterism or futurism. So your spin is still incorrect, but at least you are moving closer to an accurate assessment of history. I am satisfied knowing that I smacked it down enough that you will not hastily use that very poor argument again in the future.

And yes I refuse to get into substantive Scriptural debate with you since you do not view me as a sister in the Lord. What part of that sentence do you find unintelligible?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let me see.You will discuss some things with me,such as the testimony of the early church fathers,but you ill not discuss substantive Scriptual issues with me!

You now say that you never said that the teaching of the early church fathers cannot be trusted,even though you did say that their teaching was "muddled".So all I can get out of this is the fact that in the future you will TRUST the part of their testimony that fits your ideas and discard the rest.Seems about in line with the way you operate.

You take the Scriptures which you think support your views and discard those which are in direct conflict with your teaching.You only prove that you will say anything in order to AVOID discussing these issues.

And you say that you smacked down my argument,when in fact you did no such thing.You only demonstrate that you an turn a "victory" into a defeat,just as you did in regard to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures where the Lord Jesus said:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

That event is the same event which Paul describes in the following verse:

"And so all Israel shall be saved;as it is written,There shall come out of Zion a Deliverer,and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"(Ro.11:26).

But according to your misguided teaching,the time when the Lord DELIVERED the Jews was no DELIVERANCE at all.You say that this refers to the time in 70AD when Jerusalem was totally and utterly destroyed.

Repent from your false teaching,Dee Dee.Turn from your man-made theology and turn to what the Scriptures actually say.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes, Jerry it is a judgment call. You mishandled history and I cleared that up. That is not that difficult. Your semantical games with the ECF are not worth any more of my time. You continually misrepresent people who do not agree with you and that is just sad. I do not just "trust" the part of the ECF that agree with me, any honest reader of my posts will see that I gave equal recognition to both their preterist and futurist views, and did not emphasize one to the total expense of the other as you did. And I did not clear it up for you benefit but for the benefit of the readership since this is a common argument, and I do not think I ever really dealt with it at TOL before so it was worthwhile. You need to repent of your unjust judgment of the salvation of your sister in Christ. That is a serious, serious sin indeed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe that it is no "sin" to rebuke those who deny the plain words of Holy Scripture and pervert them so that they match their false theology.After all,is not the Christian told to do just that?:

"Preach the word;be diligent in season,out of season;reprove,REBUKE,exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine,but,after their own lusts,shall the heap to themselves teachers,having itching ears;and THEY SHALL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH,AND SHALL BE TURNED INTO FABLES"(2Tim.4:2-4).

And one of the FABLES that these preople teach is the idea that the following prophesised events have already come to pass:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious that this event has not yet come to pass.But those who teach the FABLES say that it has.However,when asked to give their interpretation of these verses,THEY REFUSE!!!

They just go about their merry ways pretending as if these verses do not even exist.They attempt to find any EXCUSE in order that they can IGNORE those Scriptual passages so that they can continue to teach their false eschatology.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why do the preterists refuse to tell us when the following events came to pass?:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.However,those who say that they have already occured will not tell us when they did occur.They say that their ideas are based on the Holy Scriptures,but when given a chance to prove what they say,they refuse!

In His grace,--Jerry