User:Pvasiliadis/Temp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Chiliasm/Millennialism

[edit] Justo L. González, Essential Theological Terms, Westminster John Knox Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0664228101

  • "Chiliasm" (p. 34): Sometimes the term "millennialism" is reserved for modern eschatological speculation, often trying to determine the time of the millennium, or the order of the final events. In that case, "chiliasm" is used for the common view in early Christian theology of a reign of God on earth, with emphasis on its joy and its abundance rather than on its time or its duration. These views soon fell into disrepute as theologians more influenced by Platonism declared them to be too materialistic, and not sufficiently spiritual.
  • "Millennialism" (p. 109, 110): The expectation of a reign of Christ on earth, either before or after his 'parousia'. The millennium has been the subject of much debate, particularly among fundamentalist Christians in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, who do not agree on the interpretation of Revelation 20:2-7—Revelation being the only book in the New Testament where a reign of a thousand years is explicitly mentioned. In the second century, Christian theologians such as Papias and Irenaeus did believe in a reign of God on earth—a reign of peace, justice, and physical abundance—and they sometimes spoke of it as lasting a thousand years (see Chiliasm). Others, such as Augustine (354-430), felt that such expectations were too materialistic, and preferred to understand the millennium as well as any scriptural reference to an eschatological abundance as allegorical language referring to a purely spiritual reign or kingdom of God (Amillennialism). During the Middle Ages, due to the influence of Augustine and other theologians of Neoplalonic tendencies, the millennium was generally understood as a figurative way of speaking of heaven, or if not, as the present life of the church, in which evil is supposed to be bound. Many combined the saying in 2 Peter, that a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of God, with notions of a history of the world that would last seven thousand years, and thus developed schemes in which there would be a thousand years between the first and the second advents of Christ. It was in the seventeenth century that eschatological speculation and literalistic interpretations of Revelation 20 led to a renewed interest in the millennium, and particularly to the development of a series of schemes or programs for the events surrounding its coming.

[edit] Reginald Stackhouse, The End of the World?: A New Look at an Old Belief, 1997, Paulist Press, ISBN 0809137275, p. 35-37.

  • Common to all millennialists is a confidence that the promises of Jesus Christ will be historically fulfilled regardless of how long delayed that reality may be. That nothing has happened to justify that assurance may bother others, but not them. In their eyes the issue remains what it has always been: the readiness of people to accept the Bible as written.
It is a mistake to think that millennialism is a doctrine for the ignorant, a message for "hillbilly" preachers or their television equivalents. It has appealed, at different times in history, to the erudite as well, as we can see by examining one of the most perennially quoted theologians of early Christianity.
When the second century came and Christ did not, some Christians were attracted by a spiritual alternative called Gnosticism. Its name, from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis, stood for the secret knowledge offered to converts upon initiation into one of its cults. That knowledge, the secret of salvation, clued them in to the truly spiritual redemption they could have when they were liberated from the physical body and the material world. What did Gnosticism make of an incarnate Christ, a physical resurrection, and a historical second coming? It handled the question by insisting that Christ did not really take on a body during his years on earth but just seemed to do so. Basically, this logic provided the key to understanding how the Gnostics handled everything else, including the return of Christ and the end of the world. At that time, as now, there was a passion for spirituality, and the Gnostic gospel was eager to speak to it. That it did not manage to overturn the church's faith or supersede it was due in great part to a succession of teachers, often called Church Fathers, some of whom would now also be labeled millennialists.
As a spokesperson for those who take the eschatol-ogy of the New Testament literally, regardless of apparent unfulfillment, we can find no better champion than an African with the incredibly Roman name of Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus (170-230).
Tertullian provides a good model for us because he took his stand immovably on a literal interpretation of New Testament eschatology. By his time, it was over a century and a half since St. Paul and St. Mark had composed the first eschatological passages. By all reasonable standards, Jesus' second coming, as it had by now come to be called, should have happened. The new order of God's kingdom should have been in place. As challenging as its absence might be to many, some of them finding Gnosticism attractive as a result, it was not a problem for Tertullian. It did not dilute an aggressive combative style that has had no better exponent to this day, and belief in a coming millennium needed nothing less.
By Tertullian's time religious sects were proliferating in the Roman Empire. Some were on the edge of Christianity. One of these, called Montanism after its founder, Montanus, taught that people should expect the world's end; and two of its female prophets, Priscilla and Maximila, told people the end would come in their lifetime. When Maximila died in 179 without this prophecy being confirmed, the effect on Montanism could have been devastating had the sect not attracted such a leader as Tertullian.
Tertullian's response to all doubt was simple and straightforward. Jesus' second coming had not occurred but it was going to, and just as the New Testament said it would. Montanism proclaimed the belief that history had moved into a new age, the age of the Paraclete or Holy Spirit. The Montanists held that in this new age, each believer was given prophetic insight by which he or she could see what others were denied. For anyone with this Spirit, Tertullian insisted, the fact that Jesus had not returned was not a problem. Believers understood he could not come back until all biblical prophecies had been fulfilled, just as his first coming—in the nativity—had had to wait on prophetic events happening. The prophecies were as much part of eschatology as the return of Christ himself, and believers therefore were ready to wait without losing faith. Everything about Jesus' earthly days—his birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension—had happened...


[edit] Πολύκαρπος Σμύρνης

«Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος μηνὸς Ξανθικοῦ δευτέρᾳ ἱσταμένου κατὰ δὲ Ρωμαίους πρὸ ἑπτὰ καλανδῶν Μαρτίων σαββάτῳ μεγάλῳ ὥρᾳ ὀγδόῃ. Συνελήφθη δὲ ὑπὸ Ἡρώδου ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Φιλίππου Τραλλιανοῦ, ἀνθυπατεύοντος Στατίου Κοδράτου, βασι λεύοντος δὲ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ». (Μαρτύριον Πολυκάρπου 21.1.1-5)

[edit] Ιεχωβά

Ιωάννης Πασσάς, Τα Ορφικά σ. 260:

«Τούς Ιουδαίους όμως παρό τός ζωηρός έπιθυμίας των ό Ζεύς, ώς παλαιότερος θεός, όπως όποδεικνύεται, όπό τόν Ιεχωβά τών . Ιουδαίων, όσφαλώς δέν τούς έγνώριζεν, διό νό εχη τόν καιρόν νό έκτιμήση τήν όξίαν των, νό τούς έκλέξη, νό τούς όναγνωρίση καί νό τούς προβόλλη «ώς περιούσιον Λαόν.., διότι όπλούστατα τήν έποχήν τών . Ορφικών οί 'Ιουδαίοι δέν ύπηρχον ώς Λαός, καί άς ίοχυρίζονται ότι πρώτοι αύτοί καθιέρωσαν τήν ΜονοθεΙαν!!... όγνοούντες καί περιφρονούντες φυσικό τήν όρθήν ο.ποψιν τού . Επικτήτου, ότι ή προτίμησις τού Θεού, περιορίζεται είς όρισμένα μόνον άτομα, πού είναι προικισμένα πρόγματι, μέ έξαιρετικός ίδιότητας άπό τόν θεόν, όπό τήν φύσιν καί ύπερέχουν έμφανώς τών ο.λλων, τών κοινών άνθρώπων!»

σ. 360:

«Αλλά τά άπoσnασμάτια αύτά είναι μεγΙστης άξΙας καΙ σημασΙας, διότι περιέχουν γνώσεις, άπόψεις καΙ πληροφορΙας, βάσει τών όποΙων έπιτυγχάνεται ή διαμόρφωσις μιδς γενικωτέρας βεβαίως άλλά χρησιμωτάτης έντυπώσεως καΙ γνώσεως τών θεΟΥονικών άπόψεων τών . Ορφικών, καί κυρΙως της άπόψεώς των περί της ύπάρξεως ένός καί ΜΟΝΟΝ θεού δημιουργού καί κυριόρχου τού Σύμπαντος πρός μεγίστη ν βεβαίως θλίψιν τών 'Ιουδαίων, οί όποίοι έπίστευον καΙ διεκήρυσσον δτι ό Ιεχωβά, ό Θεός των, ήτο ό πρώτος καί ΜΟΝΟΣ Θεός πού έγνώρισεν ό άνθρωπος'»

Brevard S. Childs, Book of Exodus, 2004, Westminster John Knox Press, σ. 84:

"Who was this "angel" who appeared in the fire in the lowly bush, who spoke for God in executing the redemption from Egypt? For most of the early Fathers the identity with the Son was completely obvious (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. XI, 9ff,; Justin, Trypho 59-60; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.6; IV.10; Ambrose, De fide I.13)."