Eschatology, views and best commentaries. Best scriptures for each view

The strongest case for historicism that I have seen is in the 381-page dissertation of Dojčin Živadinović. The eschatology of the influential Joachim of Fiore is examined and it is found that he laid the foundation for the historicist prophecy interpretation that was so popular through the 19th century and still has a lot of popularity even today.

"Biblical historicism requires and stimulates implicit trust in God’s involvement in human life and history. The historicist reading of the prophecies of Daniel (the “four empires” in Dan 2 and Dan 7; the prophecy of “seventy weeks” in Dan 9 etc.) represented the foundation of the early Church’s faith. This might have been the reason why so many Christian expositors from 12th to 20th century accepted Joachim historical framework.". p.330

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1b1e/017821f2ec13d19bdea7b4813937ff3e1e40.pdf

The author skips over the Shepherd of Hermas and asserts that Augustine's amillennialism was based on Gnosticism and Hellenism without an examination of the pertinent scriptures for amillennialism. The church historian Eusebius offers an alternate understanding for Daniel.

"For it was quite consistent in the king, whose view of the spectacle of life was so false, and who admired the beauty of the mere sensible colours, so to speak, in the picture set up to view, to liken the life of all men to a great image; but (it became) the prophet to compare the great and mighty tumult of life to a mighty sea. And it was fitting that the king, who prized the substances deemed precious among men, gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, should liken to these substances the kingdoms that held the sovereignty at different times in the life of men; but that the prophet should describe these same kingdoms under the likeness of beasts, in accordance with the manner of their rule. And again, the king—who was puffed up, as it seems, in his own conceit, and plumed himself on the power of his ancestors—is shown the vicissitude to which affairs are subject, and the end destined for all the kingdoms of earth, with the view of teaching him to lay aside his pride in himself, and understand that there is nothing stable among men, but only that which is the appointed end of all things—the kingdom of God."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.i.x.iii.html

The lives of all men are being figuratively described according to Eusebius. Augustine lays the ground for amillennialism in the City of God Book XX.7.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XX.7.html

I am an amillennialist and will give a scriptural argument. Pre-mill and post-mill believe that the millennium is God's kingdom on earth while a-mill sees it as a spiritual reality that is present in the church. Perhaps post-mill is similar, but it sees an outward expression of the kingdom on the earth. Paul says;

Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

The kingdom of God is spoken of not as a material kingdom, but as a spiritual reality. Jesus said;

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Jesus used the example of the mustard seed as an example of the kingdom and of faith which grows as does Daniel's mountain. (Dan 2:35, Mat 13:31, 17:20, Luke 13:19, 17:6) In Hebrews God's rest is the seventh day which can be understood as the kingdom of faith offered by Christ. (Heb 3:18, 4:4-5) Church fathers such as Irenaeus (V.XXIV.2) and Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho LXXXI) noted how Adam lived nearly a thousand years but died spiritually on the day he was disobedient. This is also spoken of by Philo of Alexandria (Q&A on Genesis 2:17) and in the ancient Jewish book of Jubilees (4:30-31).

Does anyone have a really convincing logical or biblical argument about this ?

'This' being, I sincerely hope, the Lord's return.

'This' is exactly the problem, I find personally : that so much consideration of what is termed 'eschatology' is about complex formulations regarding the future : the future of the world, of what presently professes to be 'Jewish', of what presently professes to be 'Christian' and what presently consists, largely, of nations in conflict.

What is forgotten in many of these schemes - is the Lord himself and his return.

What is forgotten, often, is the first five words of the Apocalypse written by the Apostle John :

The Revelation of Jesus Christ. [Revelation 1:1, KJV.]

It is he who is revealed in the 'unveiling' and it shall be he who is revealed at the end of time. He, himself, personally.

And what is so often forgotten are the words of Jesus himself about the future :

Take heed that no man deceive you ... [Matthew 24:4, KJV.]

... be ye also ready ... [Matthew 24:44, KJV.]

So many schemes are, in fact, deceptive, because they take the mind off of Christ and into a labyrinth of complications about the future. And they dissuade one from being 'ready'.

The most convincing logical and biblical argument I know of (which is the crux of the above question) is to be ready for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ : whatever is happening in the world, or in Israel, or in the spectrum of Christian profession, or in the heavens, or on the earth.

(After all is said and done, I may not live another hour to contemplate these happenings, in any case.)

To be ready, personally, in my own walk, my own conduct, my own prayers, my own deeds and my own words (which includes these ones) knowing that all of it will be judged and scrutinized, as it must be according to many scriptures.

And to be ready, corporately, in all my relationships, my associations, my affiliations and all my interactions, knowing that all of these, also, will be judged and scrutinized, as it must be, according to many scriptures.