Posted on 09/12/2013 4:22:27 AM PDT by imardmd1
In 1962, philosopher-scientist Thomas Kuhn coined the term “paradigm shift” to signal a massive change in the way a community thinks about a particular topic. Examples of paradigm shifts include Copernicus’s discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Each changed the world of thought (some for better, some for worse) in a fundamental way.
From a political perspective, Constantine’s Edict of Milan, issued in AD 313, constituted the formal beginning of a major paradigm shift that signaled the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the medieval period. That edict legitimated Christianity and impressed upon it the Empire’s stamp of approval.
(snip)
It is a fair question to ask: “Why do we care about the eschatological views of the early church fathers?” We as evangelicals emphatically agree with Hodge that “the true method of theology… assumes that the Bible contains all the facts or truths which form the contents of theology.” As Ryrie cogently put it:
The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong unless, of course, it is unscriptural.
(snip)
From a theological perspective—specifically an eschatological one—the Edict of Milan also signaled a monumental paradigm shift—from the well-grounded premillennialism of the ancient church fathers to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that would dominate eschatological thinking from the fourth century AD to at least the middle part of the nineteenth century. Yet, as explored below, the groundwork for this shift was laid long before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313. In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen’s allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of Augustinian amillennialism.
(snip)
The crushing blow for premillennialism came with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, by which Constantine reversed the Roman Empire’s policy of hostility toward Christianity and accorded it full legal recognition and even favor. Historian Paul Johnson calls the issuance of this edict “one of the decisive events in world history. With it, no longer was the blood of the martyrs the seed of the church. Rather, Christianity would be, in many ways, a mirror-image of the empire itself. “It was catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, multi-racial and increasingly legalistic.” It was a huge force for stability. Hence, Christianity after 313 would become worldly, rather than other-worldly.
The church’s new-found favor from Rome caused dramatic upheavals. Jerome complained that “one who was yesterday a catechumen is today a bishop; another moves overnight from the ampitheatre to the church; a man who spent the evening in the circus stands next morning at the altar, and another who was recently a patron of the stage is now the dedicator of virgins.” He wrote that “our walls glitter with gold, and gold gleams upon our ceilings and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor, naked and hungry.”
Thus, the focus of the church changed from looking for ultimate comfort in the world beyond the grave to seeking comfort in this world, in the here and now. Christianity was viewed as “a religion with a glorious past as well as an unlimited future. As a result, it suffered what Johnson called “a receding, indeed, disappearing, eschatology.”
(snip)
The lesson for us is that we must continually guard against interpreting the Bible according to current events—a point often lost on some of dispensational millennialism’s more popular proponents.
The bottom line, of course, is that we must continually go back to the Scriptures as our only source for “doing theology.” As much as we may respect and admire the early church fathers, or, for that matter, the reformers, the puritans, or a particular modern spiritual leader, we must always remember to be Bereans, checking their conclusions and reasoning against the plumb line of God’s Word. No one could put it more clearly or forcefully than Martin Luther as he boldly and defiantly proclaimed before the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God… Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.”
>> “Even in Jerusalem, there were Jews who spoke only Greek” <<
.
That is absolute garbage!
And none of Alexander’s conquests had any effect on national languages.
Alexander, a Danite Hebrew himself ethnically, even conmmented on his being mentioned in prophecy when in Jerusalem. Alexander was very much a ‘friendly’ conqueror in Jerusalem.
No, you are asking me to prove from Scripture that he taught those things. Since I believe in a living church established by Jesus Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit from error I see no need to prove that from Scripture. I do not believe in sola scripture.
You do believe in sola scriptura so you should be able to show from Scripture itself that this was the teaching of the apostles. That neither you, or anyone else, can give a scriptural bases for this belief clearly shows that it is indeed anti-scriptual.
Or it could mean that Paul was writing in Greek as a second language. Using grammatical patterns from one's native language is quite common for speakers of a second non-native language. It is absurd to think that Paul wrote his epistles in Hebrew when those addressed would not understand it. Greek was the common language of the entire eastern Mediterranean. This was the language that Paul used.
But it did introduce Greek as the common language of the entire eastern Mediterranean. Why do you think the Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt produced the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament? Notice also that the titulus on the Cross was in Hebrew, Latin and Greek.
imardmd1 wrote: “This article pinpoints the event on the historical time line in which the “sacral society” concept quashed the Apostolic New Testament doctrinal view of eschatology for almost two thousand years, due to the many documented errors of the fallible early “church father” theologians. That effect has been partially offset by the effective reintroduction of premillennium doctrine since the mid-1800s and its incorporation in evangelical commentaries and literature.”
So “for almost two thousand years,...” God has denied us His Word and His Church? That sounds like the odd Mormon view of the Bible.
No, Alexander was a Macedonian.
>> “Or it could mean that Paul was writing in Greek as a second language” <<
.
No, it couldn’t possibly mean that, because Paul understood every element of Hebrew language, and culture. He was Gamaliel’s best student!
It means that the translators worked long enough after the almost absolute diaspora that little knowledge about the language and customs was available.
But not necessarily every aspect of the Greek language which would have been a second language for him. Have you not spoken with those who use English as a second language? Do you know any other languages? If so, would you consider yourself completely fluent and equal to a native speaker?
I am an unabashed premillennial.
I do not think being part of a hierarchical church means that premillennialism is not present. It just means that it’s in the minority. For whatever reason, hierarchies particularly seem to gravitate toward more allegorical interpretations. Perhaps it’s because they are simply less troublesome.
My research has convinced me that premillennialism was the position of the earliest church.
I totally reject full preterism, and I’m not very fond of any partial preterism that overstates 70 AD.
But you MUST show and be able to prove that the apostles taught what you believe.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Going by hearsay without proof that the apostles taught something you believe is believing “another gospel”. If you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura than you must prove from some other source that the apostles taught what you believe.
No, all I have to do is show that our Lord established an authoritative teaching church based on Peter and the apostles whose authority exists today with the pope and the bishops. You are well aware of the many Scripture passages that Catholics use to support this. In the end we are not disputing with each other over the authority of Scripture but its meaning.
Again, I point out that Paul states in Galatians "which we have preached" not written. We both accept the authority of this passage but differ on its meaning and that of many other passages. If you truly believed in sola scriptura then you would not insist that I accept your interpretations. Do you claim for yourself an infallibility of interpretation that you reject for the Church as a whole?
The fact that you are unwilling (ahem, unable) to show from Scripture itself that the apostles taught sola scriptura shouts loudly of the inner contradiction of this theory. This, and not the teaching of the Catholic Church, is the other gospel than "that that ye have received."
The Greeks ruled Jerusalem down to time of the Maccabees. Koine was the lingua franca for all of Syria.
Jerusalem is not in syria, and syria had been heavily helenized before Alexander.
Paul apparently communicated fairly well in Greek when he was in Athens; he caused massive rebellion. But there is no credible EVIDENCE that he wrote anything in Greek. (evidence as opposed to abundant opinion from the unbelievers that rule acadenia)
Macedonia was well populated with Danites.
A study of Greek names shows massive Danite influence. Many of the current names of Greek characters came from Hebrew too.
Except his epistles.
So Paul could clearly speak Greek but for some reason he refused to write in Greek even when he was writing to Greek speakers?
Pauls epistles wer written in Hebrew and later translated to other languages.
Pauls epistles are a showcase of mistranslation.
Really?!? Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Or of a broken Greek from a non-native speaker.
The Hasmoneans came to power in reaction to Antiochus’ decision to hellenize Judea, including Jerusalem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.