3) The early church witness. Specifically, Papias was a chiliast and a "hearer of the apostle John" according to Eusebius. What better person to interpret the millennium than a disciple of the man who wrote Revelation?
This was Irenaeus’ private opinion from reading Papias’ writings that he was personally acquainted with the apostle John, Eusebius shows (after presenting Irenaeus’ quote) that such a construal is unlikely. In doing this Eusebius actually refers to Papias’ writings and quotes him directly to prove there is no evidence Papias knew the apostle John.
Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History Book 3 chapter 39
2. Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses, that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their friends:
3. "But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing its truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign commandments, but in those (who record) such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself."
4. "And again, on any occasion when a person came (in my way) who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the elders -- what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice."
5. Here it is worthwhile to observe that he twice enumerates the name of John. The first he mentions in connexion with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, evidently meaning the Evangelist, but the other John he mentions after an interval and classes with others outside the number of the Apostles, placing Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him an Elder.
6. So that he hereby makes it quite evident that their statement is true who say that there were two persons of that name in Asia, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which even now is called (the tomb) of John. And it is important to notice this; for it is probable that it was the second, if one will not admit that it was the first, who saw the Revelation which is ascribed by name to John.
---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------
They also populate the new earth with countless mortals and countless wicked. Amils and Postmils consider the new earth to be perfect and only for the righteous.
Nice to have you here.
Are you sure you're not conflating dispensationalism with historic premil here? Historic Premil does not have the NH & NE until after the end of the millennium and thus would not differ from amil and postmil in that respect. On second thought, I think this statement is not really an accurate representation of what many dispensationalists believe regarding the NH and NE. One of the more powerful illustrations I've seen of the New Jerusalem and the absurdity of any unrighteousness there was preached by W.A. Criswell, a dispensationalist. If you meant to type millennium I can see your point but that wouldn't appear to make sense given the context.
Also, please update your signature per board requirements before the mods get ya.
In my experience, and from even this thread, both Historic and Dispensational Premils equate Isa 65 (expressly relating to NH& NE) to a future millennium. Notwithstanding, I will reword my previous post to dispel any confusion.