God's plan for the Jews is the same as it was for Paul, Peter, Thomas, Thaddeus, etc., Jews all...Join His church and be saved...The old Judaism and the sacrificing of animals in the temple was all eliminated by Jesus (the new Temple) and His one time sacrifice for all...

Of course. That was always His plan according to scripture. And you correctly point out that most of the early church was Jewish before Christianity spread, primarily through Paul's missionary voyages.

The only distinction I would make is that, based on prophecies that were not yet fulfilled, God has a plan to display His glory through the nation of Israel. Ezekiel 38 & 39 are pretty clear about that. However, that doesn't mean those individuals will have eternal salvation without accepting Christ as their Messiah. Those that do (a minority according to Zechariah)will be saved just like you and I.

I'm not a dispensationalist per say, although I do believe God has a very specific plan for Isreal. I'm not sure how you can reconcile 1947 any other way. Or basically the entire Old Testament.

I don't live in any echo chamber and I'm well aware of the variety of different perspectives. It takes quite a bit of hubris of you to assume that people with different perspectives then you are just ignorant.

The popularity of your perspective is completely irrelevant. 100% of YHWH worshippers prior to 33 AD had no conception of the Messiah being anything like Jesus. So what? Man is wrong all the time when it comes to understanding God's plan.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

What specific issues do you have with disprnsationalism?

---

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.



I feel like that wraps it up. There is no proof of a loophole. God obviously can do as He chooses but I wouldn't hang my hopes outside of Christ.

---

You go from "no one actually agrees with 90% of Dispensationalist" to that?

I was looking for actually details. What, specifically, do you disagree with?

If this is the case, what place was Jesus referring to in John 14:2-3?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I'm not a dispensationalist per say, although I do believe God has a very specific plan for Isreal. I'm not sure how you can reconcile 1947 any other way. Or basically the entire Old Testament.

I don't live in any echo chamber and I'm well aware of the variety of different perspectives. It takes quite a bit of hubris of you to assume that people with different perspectives then you are just ignorant.

The popularity of your perspective is completely irrelevant. 100% of YHWH worshippers prior to 33 AD had no conception of the Messiah being anything like Jesus. So what? Man is wrong all the time when it comes to understanding God's plan.

---

I'm not going to argue with you if that's what you are seeking. I'm not going down the rabbit hole you are suggesting.

You have all the information a could possibly want in this day and age and I pray that you continue to grow in your relationship with Christ wherever you are.

Is a discussion board, CJ. You make blanket claims about Dispensationalists all the time. I'm just asking you to elucidate your premises. I'm honestly curious why you have such a massive issue with this perspective.

I think we all share your last sentiment for each other on this board. My primary concern, to be fully transparent, is that I see antidispensationalism often goes hand in hand with antisemitism. I don't think you are in that bucket, to be fair, but its a common thread amongst recent Orthodox and RCC converts.

There is no more Jew nor Greek (gentile). God is no longer dividing us up by ethnicity. We are all ONE in Christ, through the Church that he founded...

Ephesians 3:10
that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

One of my biggest issues with dispensationalists is their interpretation of Revelation - the way they take a clearly symbolic book and pick and choose things to be taken literally; e.g. chapter 13.

For sure, and I totally see how you have adjusted your approach and I think that's really commendable. It's definitely something I need to keep working on myself.

Revelation 1: 1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

I think the word "soon" in Revelation 1 doesn't mean 2000 years later...

2 Peter 3:8-9

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Paul also writes in Romans 11:25-30:

25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mysteryso that you will not be wise in your own estimationthat a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."
27 "This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins."
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Is a discussion board, CJ. You make blanket claims about Dispensationalists all the time. I'm just asking you to elucidate your premises. I'm honestly curious why you have such a massive issue with this perspective.

I think we all share your last sentiment for each other on this board. My primary concern, to be fully transparent, is that I see antidispensationalism often goes hand in hand with antisemitism. I don't think you are in that bucket, to be fair, but its a common thread amongst recent Orthodox and RCC converts.

---

Honestly, I have tried to be better about being less combative and more understanding of where people are in their journey, etc.

I think it's unproductive to just hammer on people and tend to try to cool my jets on this kind of thing a little bit.

I love to chat theology all day long with people in person, but I don't think it's particularly useful somewhere like Texags because it just comes across as combative.

I think my position is pretty clear and I'm also not trying to beat anyone up.

I don't know that anyone's salvation fully depends on this type of thing so it's not worth the division and strife.

---

Exactly how I feel my friend.

Thanks for sharing this perspective. I did not know of the Orthodox view.

For me, it just makes more sense to take Jesus literally here.

Have a good evening brother

Thanks! Goodnight to you guys and I'll check back in later.

Cheetah01 said:

---

This isn't the case. Irenaeus taught these same concepts. To me, saying Darby made up this theology is like saying Luther made up salvation by faith alone. Just because the church did not teach it that way did not make it so. It also didn't mean the early church didn't believe the same things Luther believed.

---

Darby, and his acolyte Schofield created this from whole cloth. Justification by Faith alone has been around since the resurrection. Luther just pointed out how far away we had gotten from it. If you want to look up the early church fathers, and how they thought on this subject, it's easy to find. To a man, they all agreed that we, Christians, are the Israel of God. That is also something that has been lost in the American church. Much to our detriment.

Just look up the history of Schofield's Bible. It explains a lot.

Pierow said:

---

Cheetah01 said:

---

This isn't the case. Irenaeus taught these same concepts. To me, saying Darby made up this theology is like saying Luther made up salvation by faith alone. Just because the church did not teach it that way did not make it so. It also didn't mean the early church didn't believe the same things Luther believed.

---

Darby, and his acolyte Schofield created this from whole cloth. Justification by Faith alone has been around since the resurrection. Luther just pointed out how far away we had gotten from it. If you want to look up the early church fathers, and how they thought on this subject, it's easy to find. To a man, they all agreed that we, Christians, are the Israel of God. That is also something that has been lost in the American church. Much to our detriment.

Just look up the history of Schofield's Bible. It explains a lot.

---

Avg protestant: Luther was just taking the church back to what the orignial Christians taught and believed

Luther himself*: None of the church fathers knew or taught about this doctrine of justification.

* Read Luther's commentary on Galatians where he admits this. The simplified version of the reformation we are all told about is nothing like the real thing. Not to mention his novel doctrine that true free will doesn't exist.

What is the specific quote you are referencing in Luther's commentary? I don't see it.

Cheetah01 said:

---

What is the specific quote you are referencing in Luther's commentary? I don't see it.

---

Quote:

---

We want it understood that we do not reject the Law as our opponents claim. On the contrary, we uphold the Law. We say the Law is good if it is used for the purposes for which it was designed, to check civil transgression, and to magnify spiritual transgressions. The Law is also a light like the Gospel. But instead of revealing the grace of God, righteousness, and life, the Law brings sin, death, and the wrath of God to light. This is the business of the Law, and here the business of the Law ends, and should go no further.

The business of the Gospel, on the other hand, is to quicken, to comfort, to raise the fallen. The Gospel carries the news that God for Christ's sake is merciful to the most unworthy sinners, if they will only believe that Christ by His death has delivered them from sin and everlasting death unto grace, forgiveness, and everlasting life. By keeping in mind the difference between the Law and the Gospel we let each perform its special task. Of this difference between the Law and the Gospel nothing can be discovered in the writings of the monks or scholastics, nor for that matter in the writings of the ancient fathers. Augustine understood the difference somewhat. Jerome and others knew nothing of it. The silence in the Church concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel has resulted in untold harm. Unless a sharp distinction is maintained between the purpose and function of the Law and the Gospel, the Christian doctrine cannot be kept free from error.

---

First we see that he acknowledges that his gospel of faith alone is not found anywhere.

Next he kindly shows that people are showing him that he is in contradiction with the historical Church teaching. His response? 'I don't care, I know I'm right and everyone else is doing satan's bidding'

Quote:

---

The arguments which the false apostles advanced impress people to this day. "Who are you to dissent from the fathers and the entire Church, and to bring a contradictory doctrine? Are you wiser than so many holy men, wiser than the whole Church?" When Satan, abetted by our own reason, advances these arguments against us, we lose heart, unless we keep on saying to ourselves: "I don't care if Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Peter, Paul, John, or an angel from heaven, teaches so and so. I know that I teach the truth of God in Christ Jesus."

---

I appreciate that this has become conventional wisdom. It is true that Darby gathered the full structured thought is dispensationalism and Scofield amplified it in his study bible. However there are several early fathers who believed in several of these elements, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Papias, Justin Martyr. Saying it was invented "whole cloth" is not true. It's really not difficult to find examples of that statement being false even if you hold an amillennial position.

Cheetah01 said:

---

I appreciate that this has become conventional wisdom. It is true that Darby gathered the full structured thought is dispensationalism and Scofield amplified it in his study bible. However there are several early fathers who believed in several of these elements, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Papias, Justin Martyr. Saying it was invented "whole cloth" is not true. It's really not difficult to find examples of that statement being false even if you hold an amillennial position.

---

Can you post the Dispensationalist teachings that match Darby's and the Evangelicals beliefs of early Church Fathers.

In betting you can't.

You might find a guy who had a thought that kind of sounds like something that could be used to say it sorta kind of maybe type thing but that's about it is my guess.

Also worth pointing out that early Church Fathers are revered for shaping Christian theology. They are not considered infallible. The process of defining orthodoxy was dynamic and lasted for centuries.

Justin Martyr held views that were later rejected or corrected by the Church. He pondered Christ was subordinate or a second God.

Origen wrote that Satan would be unified with God at some point.

Tertulian believed grave sins could not be forgiven after baptism.

Gregory believed we were owned by Satan and that Christ hid in human form to deceive the devil and ransom us.

We appreciate their contributions but every thought was not accepted obviously and some were pretty wild.

This is why The Church is vital. Who stops Darbys heresies in Evangelical America?

Apparently no one….

I fully agree with your comment about church fathers not being inspired and honestly am more concerned about what I read directly from the bible.

I will revert back with specific quotes as I'm about to turn in.

Cheetah01 said:

---

I fully agree with your comment about church fathers not being inspired and honestly am more concerned about what I read directly from the bible.

I will revert back with specific quotes as I'm about to turn in.

---

Thanks. Chat soon.

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Cheetah01 said:

---

This isn't the case. Irenaeus taught these same concepts. To me, saying Darby made up this theology is like saying Luther made up salvation by faith alone. Just because the church did not teach it that way did not make it so. It also didn't mean the early church didn't believe the same things Luther believed.

---

Darby, and his acolyte Schofield created this from whole cloth. Justification by Faith alone has been around since the resurrection. Luther just pointed out how far away we had gotten from it. If you want to look up the early church fathers, and how they thought on this subject, it's easy to find. To a man, they all agreed that we, Christians, are the Israel of God. That is also something that has been lost in the American church. Much to our detriment.

Just look up the history of Schofield's Bible. It explains a lot.

---

Avg protestant: Luther was just taking the church back to what the orignial Christians taught and believed

Luther himself*: None of the church fathers knew or taught about this doctrine of justification.

* Read Luther's commentary on Galatians where he admits this. The simplified version of the reformation we are all told about is nothing like the real thing. Not to mention his novel doctrine that true free will doesn't exist.

---

Who lives your Christian life? Who wrote the book of Romans? It is far more complicated than our small minds can imagine.

Pierow said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Cheetah01 said:

---

This isn't the case. Irenaeus taught these same concepts. To me, saying Darby made up this theology is like saying Luther made up salvation by faith alone. Just because the church did not teach it that way did not make it so. It also didn't mean the early church didn't believe the same things Luther believed.

---

Darby, and his acolyte Schofield created this from whole cloth. Justification by Faith alone has been around since the resurrection. Luther just pointed out how far away we had gotten from it. If you want to look up the early church fathers, and how they thought on this subject, it's easy to find. To a man, they all agreed that we, Christians, are the Israel of God. That is also something that has been lost in the American church. Much to our detriment.

Just look up the history of Schofield's Bible. It explains a lot.

---

Avg protestant: Luther was just taking the church back to what the orignial Christians taught and believed

Luther himself*: None of the church fathers knew or taught about this doctrine of justification.

* Read Luther's commentary on Galatians where he admits this. The simplified version of the reformation we are all told about is nothing like the real thing. Not to mention his novel doctrine that true free will doesn't exist.

---

Who lives your Christian life? Who wrote the book of Romans? It is far more complicated than our small minds can imagine.

---

Who typed this post? Who is using your mind to try to understand?

Quote:

---

This is why The Church is vital. Who stops Darbys heresies in Evangelical America?

Apparently no one….

---

I mean, its been an open conversation since he wrote his thoughts. There are protestants that are openly critical of Dispensationalist. I'm not sure how thats categorically different then any doctrine that is disputed among GO'S or RCCs.

Cheetah01 said:

---

I appreciate that this has become conventional wisdom. It is true that Darby gathered the full structured thought is dispensationalism and Scofield amplified it in his study bible. However there are several early fathers who believed in several of these elements, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Papias, Justin Martyr. Saying it was invented "whole cloth" is not true. It's really not difficult to find examples of that statement being false even if you hold an amillennial position.

---

Oh, I am by no means an amillennialist. Christ will most assuredly rule and rain on earth. I look forward to that. Ignatius is the primary earliest father who professed Christians is being the true Israel.

Ignatius:

"It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end... And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God."

Justin Martyr:

"For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham… are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ."

"We, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelite race."

Clement of Alexandria:

"There is a Church of Christ, which is the true Israel, both by faith and according to the Spirit, not of the flesh, and this is the holy nation."

Origen:

"We are the true nation, the new Israel, that takes the place of the ancient one, which is the Church of Christ."

Augustine of Hippo:

"The Church is the true Israel, the spiritual seed of Abraham."

Not to mention the chapter 1st Peter two. It states clearly who the people of God are. Jesus also warns us to be wary of those who call themselves Jews, but are not.

That's why I say that the Schofield/Darby connection, and the means to which it came to fruition, were evil.

Peace

I strongly disagree that they were "evil." Misguided, maybe, but dispensationalism has done more to improve Christian and Jewish relations then just about any other Christian theological development in history.

Dispensationalism prepared America for the events in 1947. Just as America was ascending to the catbird seat of hegemonic global power, Isreal was put back on the map. I see the Holy Spirit working through all of these events.

Incidentally, 1947 was the year the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Think about that for a second. They were burried the year before the Temple was destroyed, and were randomly discovered the year Isreal came back. The oldest attestation to the ancient wisdom of the scriptures, randomly discovered the year Isreal is refounded.


And, again, just as Isreal is reformed, the most powerful country on earth is sympathetic to their existence.

I don't think that means Jews have a special backdoor into heaven or any other such ideas. Christ is the way. But the Jewish people have been dragged through hell for 3,000 years, and the scriptures strongly imply that the hell Isreal is enduring is to the benefit of man kind. Its all part of His plan, and He rather demonstrably repeats, over and over and over again, that He will never forget His people.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I strongly disagree that they were "evil." Misguided, maybe, but dispensationalism has done more to improve Christian and Jewish relations then just about any other Christian theological development in history.

Dispensationalism prepared America for the events in 1947. Just as America was ascending to the catbird seat of hegemonic global power, Isreal was put back on the map. I see the Holy Spirit working through all of these events.

Incidentally, 1947 was the year the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Think about that for a second. They were burried the year before the Temple was destroyed, and were randomly discovered the year Isreal came back. The oldest attestation to the ancient wisdom of the scriptures, randomly discovered the year Isreal is refounded.


And, again, just as Isreal is reformed, the most powerful country on earth is sympathetic to their existence.

I don't think that means Jews have a special backdoor into heaven or any other such ideas. Christ is the way. But the Jewish people have been dragged through hell for 3,000 years, and the scriptures strongly imply that the hell Isreal is enduring is to the benefit of man kind. Its all part of His plan, and He rather demonstrably repeats, over and over and over again, that He will never forget His people.

---

Brother, I used to feel the same way. About everything you said. I was a huge supporter of Israel. However, if you do your research, you will find that it was a very nefarious endeavor, creating that nation. Not to mention, how do you manage to get kicked out of 109 countries? Why are DNA tests not legal in Israel? Look up the history of the Kazars and the Ashkenazi. They are eastern European converts of Japheth, not Shem. How has the United States prospered since Israel was brought into existence? To me, looking at it historically, we've been anything but blessed in the last 80 years. Scripturally, we were warned. By Peter, and by Jesus. Why would we support any Government that completely abhors Jesus Christ? Any government that considers themselves above goyem? Any government that attacks United States military personnel under the guise of a false flag? Look up the King David hotel and the USS Liberty. As a former Navy man, it made my skin crawl. No one ever taught us that in school. No, I have noticed way too much. I will never look at Israel the same way again.

The USS Liberty was a very unfortunate accident. Something our own military has done.

How has the US been blessed the last 80 years? Its only one of the prosperous times any country has had in human history.

I'm afraid you are being sucked in by antisemitic propaganda. Genetic testing is allowed in Isreal, although it is regulated.

From Grok, FWIW:

Quote:

---

The claim that Jews were expelled from exactly 109 countries is a fabricated antisemitic meme, not a historical fact.

It originates primarily from fringe hate sites (notably linked to a Holocaust-denying Australian group) and circulates as white supremacist shorthand. The lists that produce the number 109 (or nearby figures) do so by inflating the count: treating cities, duchies, principalities, ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and regions as separate "countries"; double-counting repeated expulsions or temporary bans from the same territory under different rulers; mixing full national expulsions with local restrictions, persecutions, or unverified events; and sometimes including fabrications.

There is no credible historical tally of 109 sovereign countries. Major, well-documented national or kingdom-level expulsions number far feweron the order of a dozen core cases in medieval and early modern Europe, plus significant 20th-century forced migrations.
Examples include:

England, 1290 (Edict of Expulsion under Edward I).
Multiple waves from France (notably 1182, 1306, 1394).
Spain, 1492 (Alhambra Decree) and related actions in Sicily and Portugal shortly after.

Various German states, Italian cities/principalities, Austria, Hungary, and others under fragmented medieval polities.

These were typically driven by religious hostility, rulers seizing Jewish property or canceling debts (Jews were often restricted to moneylending while Christians faced usury bans), and scapegoating during crises such as plagues or wars. Jews were also repeatedly invited or allowed to resettle in places such as Poland and the Ottoman Empire for economic reasons.

In the mid-20th century, roughly 850,000 Jews fled or were expelled from Arab and Muslim-majority countries after 1948 amid violence, property seizures, and discriminatory laws; most resettled in Israel. This was a large-scale exodus from multiple countries, not 109 discrete national expulsions across history.

Jewish communities, as a diaspora minority over two millennia, faced repeated local expulsions, pogroms, and restrictions in many placesjust as other minorities have faced persecution. Counting every city decree or temporary ban as a separate "country" produces a meaningless, propagandistic total designed to invert cause and effect: treating victimization as proof of collective guilt rather than examining specific political, religious, and economic contexts. The number itself is not evidence of anything beyond the methods of the lists that produce it.

---

I would be extremely cautious using the world's history of antisemitism as proof that antisemitism is a good thing.

Okay Brother, here is what I've got. In all, I'd say we have a mix of premillennialism and some futurism mixed in. To me, there is ample evidence that premillennialism was debated early on. Replacement theology was pervasive, and amplified by Origen. If you're looking for a lack of quotes on dispensational thought in the early church, it would center on this concept as there is little to find.

Personally, I draw on scripture here, in particular Daniel 12 and Romans 9-11.

Quotes following:

Irenaeus
On the Rapture:

In Against Heresies 5.5.1 we read, "For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. … Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who are translated are translated to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable … ), and that those who have been translated shall remain there until the consummation [the end], as a prelude to incorruptability."

In Against Heresies 5.29.1 he says, "And therefore, in the end when the Church is suddenly caught up from this, it is said, There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption."

On the millennium

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the
rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Against Heresies 5.30.4

Tertullian

"We do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, "let down from heaven," which the apostle also calls "our mother from above;" and, while declaring that our , or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven." Ante Nicene Fathers Vol iii

Justin Martyr

"I admitted to you formerly, that
I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." Dialogue with Trypho

"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent[shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, i saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree[of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the nay fie ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection." Dialogue with Trypho

Papias

"The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth." (Eusebius speaking of Papias in Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord - Fragment VI).