Curious that y'all would hang your hopes on a human tradition, and a very thin one at that. Not to mention that this tradition comes from the very same church fathers that you apparently do not hold in very high regard for the way theey destroyed "authentic Christianity".
Irenaeus wrote:
"Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John." And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation when the new covenant was revealed. For God does all things by measure and in order; nothing is unmeasured with Him, because nothing is out of order. Well spake he, who said that the unmeasurable Father was Himself subjected to measure in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also comprehends Him. But that the administration of them (the Jews) was temporary, Esaias says: "And the daughter of Zion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." And when shall these things be left behind? Is it not when the fruit shall be taken away, and the leaves alone shall be left, which now have no power of producing fruit?"
"God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, am disinherited from the grace of God."
Note in the last quote how he attacks the notion, apparently common among Jewish proselytes and Ebionites, that Jesus was born of Joseph.
Curious that you would make that assumption about me when I've made no comment on this subject.
As opposed to the "divinely" inspired doctrine of preterism?
Not to mention that this tradition comes from the very same church fathers that you apparently do not hold in very high regard for the way theey destroyed "authentic Christianity".
Already addressed, but I'll repeat: I don't have to like a person's theology in order to accept that they wrote reasonably accurate history. Indeed, the hostility of many of the fathers cited to premill makes them useful hostile witnesses. Eusebius and Jerome, for example, deplored Chiliasm and considered it a heresy, but they still acknowledged the penning of the Revelation as occuring over twenty years after when you must place it for your theology to survive. If there had been any evidence that Yochanan wrote beforehand about the seige of Jerusalem and the destruction on the Temple, you'd think they'd have jumped all over it, wouldn't you?
You know, as often as I've gotten snipes to the effect of, "Learn your history, then get back to me" from the GRPL, it's evident that you really don't understand the historian's craft. One does not ignore a historical source because of its bias--or else we'd have no historical sources left--but rather, if the source proves to be accurate and supported on other fronts, you simply take the bias into account. Further, when you see a source admitting something that they would prefer not to--like the fact that Revelation wasn't written before 70 AD in the case of Eusebius, et al.--that's when you most pay attention to them.
In regards to destroying "authentic Christianity," that's your term, not mine. I have accused the ECF of distancing themselves from Jewish believers--an accusation amply supported by their own writings--and given the historical context that explains why they did so. It was a completely human decision, and I don't lack sympathy for those who made it. But it wasn't a decision born of Sola Scriptura, and let's not pretend otherwise.
Note in the last quote how he attacks the notion, apparently common among Jewish proselytes and Ebionites, that Jesus was born of Joseph.
And this has what to do with anything, exactly? Or were you just trying to use the old fallacy of Guilt by Association?