Ummmm, yes, I do think that 3 Persons who are One is essence is very difficult if not impossible for the human mind to comprehend. We as Christians accept it by faith, and our descriptions at best can outline or summarize it; be it three states simultaneous in matter or three parts of an apple or 3 leaves of a clover, or the innumerable imperfect analogies people have looked to, to try to capture the nature of the infinite God in their minds, down through the centuries.
It is an historic fact though that before Nicea Christians wondered, argued, and searched the scriptures about the nature of God and the nature of Jesus Christ, among other things we take for granted today—and like I said in my original post, I’m not sure any of the Fathers before say AD 250 had worked out these important doctrines yet. Does that mean they were somehow intellectually or morally inferior, or not Christians? Of course not. Only that doctrine itself took some time to develop—as Church scholars better understood—and were better able to describe—the revelations of God in the bible.
My only point was that the author of the article was seeking support for pre-Millennial end-times view (which has only existed in modern days since about 1830) amidst very early church Fathers—who didn’t yet see things clearly on some very basic things like Trinity (or the Homoousious). Better to look to scripture itself (like Athanasius did when describing God as Trinity) NOT what the earliest Church Fathers—as blessed as they indeed were—thought and taught.
It is good that you accept that premillennialism is the earliest position of the church.
That lends it weight, and since eschatology will NEVER be a certain thing until AFTER the fact, it means we should at a minimum include premillennialism in our list of those possibilities that we should regularly think our way through.
In my case, I think it is the best possibility.