Amillennial denominations

[Biblewriter]

It refers to the dating of Revelation. Futurist hold that Revelation was written in 95 A.D. so their eschatology holds the prophecy of Revelation will be in the future. Because it's written after the fall of Jerusalem.

This is a complete distortion. Futurists do not base any portion of their doctrine on when the Revelation was written. Futurists simply do not care when it was written. But Preterists have to have an early date for the revelation, for if it was written in the 90's, as most scholars feel it was, then Preterism simply cannot be correct.

I do not think you can come up with even one scholar who is not a Preterist who thinks the Revelation was written before AD 90. And I do not mean scholars who are futurists. The majority of the scholars could care less when it was written. But they agree that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that is was written after AD 90.

The only real evidence for an early date is the so-called "internal" evidence in the text of the book itself. But that "internal" evidence is based on false assumptions. the main one of these that I remember at the moment is that it had to have been written before the temple was destroyed because it speaks of the temple as being in existence. But this assumption completely neglects that it could have been referring to a temple that would be built in the future. Such is the case in every one of the alleged items of "internal" evidence.

My view is that Revelation was written most likely between 64-66 A.D. and that Revelation is primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Theres only a small portion of Revelation remaining to be fulfilled as I read it.
There's more...but that's the gist of it...
The preaching of Christ brings both groups together and we both have equal access to God through Christ

Ephesians 2:19:
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

Gentiles and Jews are on the same footing with the same access to God.

Ephesians 2:20-23:
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Jews and Gentiles that are saved are building a spiritual temple to God! We are ONE.

And futurists agree with you 100% on this issue. Jews who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ and Gentiles who have trusted in him are fused together into a single body.

But that body is the church, not Israel.

This is the issue. There are those who believe instead of one people of God, there are two. They believe God has a separate plan for the Jews. That is where the "line in the sand".

There are those who believe God has another plan for Jews in the end times and that all of Israel will be saved.

That where is stands.

We simply believe the many scriptures that explicitly say that God will indeed restore Israel in her ancient land. There are numerous scriptures that explicitly say that this will happen. They also explicitly say when it will happen. And that time is after God has removed the church from this world. So there is zero conflict between this and any New Testament scripture.

 

[WisdomTree]

Yes, absolutely the Amish, Martin Luther, and insignificant me ... "Amillennialist"... good question ... thank u; however the Amish has a different "Statement of Faith" than Mr. Luther and myself ... obviously i have a different one than u not that i am right ... a saving faith is by "faith alone" justifies ... i agree to disagree with ur fides caritate formata ... yes there is an intended refute here sir, IITim.3:16 however in humility and meekness.

I think I just figured out what you were trying to say. Not meaning to be insulting, but I have a hard time reading "text language" since it looks rather distorted and also your excessive use of elipses also distorts what you're trying to say. It's probably just me, but that's why I didn't reply.

Though really off topic, but by "fide et caritas formula" is supported by scripture (James 2:24 among others) and the "charity" part does not indicate simply "good works", but also the love of God (Caritas = Love).

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Amish, like their Mennonite predecessors, are traditionally Amillennial.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebedmelech]

This is a complete distortion. Futurists do not base any portion of their doctrine on when the Revelation was written. Futurists simply do not care when it was written. But Preterists have to have an early date for the revelation, for if it was written in the 90's, as most scholars feel it was, then Preterism simply cannot be correct.

I do not think you can come up with even one scholar who is not a Preterist who thinks the Revelation was written before AD 90. And I do not mean scholars who are futurists. The majority of the scholars could care less when it was written. But they agree that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that is was written after AD 90.

The only real evidence for an early date is the so-called "internal" evidence in the text of the book itself. But that "internal" evidence is based on false assumptions. the main one of these that I remember at the moment is that it had to have been written before the temple was destroyed because it speaks of the temple as being in existence. But this assumption completely neglects that it could have been referring to a temple that would be built in the future. Such is the case in every one of the alleged items of "internal" evidence.

No Biblewriter...at least be honest! There's no overwhelming weight! The internal evidence favors an early dating of Revelation and you know that.

And futurists agree with you 100% on this issue. Jews who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ and Gentiles who have trusted in him are fused together into a single body.

But that body is the church, not Israel.

Not according to Paul...he says are both groups one...and even more being built into a holy temple to God "in the spirit".

No Biblewriter...you believe Israel is special...neither Paul nor Peter agree though.

We simply believe the many scriptures that explicitly say that God will indeed restore Israel in her ancient land. There are numerous scriptures that explicitly say that this will happen. They also explicitly say when it will happen. And that time is after God has removed the church from this world. So there is zero conflict between this and any New Testament scripture.

I know that...I said you ignore the spiritual of scripture...you just proved that. Paul says Jews and Gentiles are one....Biblewriter says they're two.

I'll go with Paul...he was inspired...

 

[WisdomTree]

The Amish, like their Mennonite predecessors, are traditionally Amillennial.

-CryptoLutheran

I thought the Anabaptists were traditionally millenarian in their theological approach...

 

[ViaCrucis]

I thought the Anabaptists were traditionally millenarian in their theological approach...

The Radical Reformation produced an assortment of groups, many were labeled "Anabaptist". Some were radical, violent, millenarian. But the followers of Menno Simons (Mennonites) weren't. Mennonites have historically been Amillennial, only a few modern Mennonites have subscribed to something different. The Amish, a break away group from the Mennonites, also continued to believe in Amillennialism.

All of the millenarian, radical extremists of the Radical Reformation seem to have died off fairly early on in Anabaptist history. It's somewhat similar to the situation with the Hussites. The followers of Jan Hus split into a few different factions, the moderate and mainline Ultraquists and the radical Taborites. The Taborites were a violent faction of Hussites who sought to establish an earthly kingdom of God, their name comes from Mt. Tabor, believing Christ would descend to establish His kingdom amongst them. The Ultraquists, however, simply desired basic ecclesiastical reform, most importantly the Eucharist being given in both kinds (the bread and the wine), which is where their name comes from sub utraque specie, "in both kinds". The Hussite Wars resulted in the defeat of the Taborites, most remaining Taborites were absorbed into the more moderate Ultraquist group. Ultraquist Hussites eventually became today's surviving Hussite groups, such as the Moravian Brethren, who became highly influenced by the Protestant Reformation under Martin Luther.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Biblewriter]

No Biblewriter...at least be honest! There's no overwhelming weight! The internal evidence favors an early dating of Revelation and you know that.

I have already answered your claims about the "internal" evidence. The external evidence is clearly skewed toward the late date, and you know it. You also should know, if you do not, that almost all scholars who are not preterists accept the late date.

Not according to Paul...he says are both groups one...and even more being built into a holy temple to God "in the spirit".

Paul clearly said that Jews who have believed in Christ and Gentiles who have believed in Christ are one. But He also clearly said that that one body is the church. That is a distinctly different concept from the one you are claiming he taught.

No Biblewriter...you believe Israel is special...neither Paul nor Peter agree though.

This is indeed interesting. You know more about what I believe than I do!!!! Is that why you also know that Paul and Peter believed things they never actually said?

In my thread on Ramans 9-11, I clearly demonstrated that Paul (but actually, the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul) said exactly what I say.

I know that...I said you ignore the spiritual of scripture...you just proved that. Paul says Jews and Gentiles are one....Biblewriter says they're two.

I'll go with Paul...he was inspired...

Paul most definitely did not say that Jews and Gentiles are one. he said that Jews who have believed in Jesus and Gentiles who have believed in Jesus are one. This has nothing to do with Jews who have not believed in Jesus or with Gentiles who have not believed in Jesus.

Jews who have not believed in Jesus are still Jews, and nothing more. And Gentiles who have not believed in Jesus are still gentiles, and nothing more.

That is why we have the clear scriptural distinction between these three groups in the words the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write in 1 Corinthians 10:32-33, "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is from the Dordrecht Confession of Faith, a Mennonite confession (which may be agreed by the Amish as well, I'm not sure):

"Finally, concerning the resurrection of the dead, we confess with the mouth, and believe with the heart, according to Scripture, that in the last day all men who shall have died, and fallen asleep, shall be awaked and quickened, and shall rise again, through the incomprehensible power of God; and that they, together with those who then will still be alive, and who shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, at the sound of the last trump, shall be placed before the judgment seat of Christ, and the good be separated from the wicked; that then everyone shall receive in his own body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil; and that the good or pious, as the blessed, shall be taken up with Christ, and shall enter into life eternal, and obtain that joy, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, to reign and triumph with Christ forever and ever." - Article XVIII. Of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Last Judgment

-CryptoLutheran

 

[WisdomTree]

This is from the Dordrecht Confession of Faith, a Mennonite confession (which may be agreed by the Amish as well, I'm not sure):

"Finally, concerning the resurrection of the dead, we confess with the mouth, and believe with the heart, according to Scripture, that in the last day all men who shall have died, and fallen asleep, shall be awaked and quickened, and shall rise again, through the incomprehensible power of God; and that they, together with those who then will still be alive, and who shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, at the sound of the last trump, shall be placed before the judgment seat of Christ, and the good be separated from the wicked; that then everyone shall receive in his own body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil; and that the good or pious, as the blessed, shall be taken up with Christ, and shall enter into life eternal, and obtain that joy, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, to reign and triumph with Christ forever and ever." - Article XVIII. Of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Last Judgment

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for the info!

 

[ebedmelech]

I have already answered your claims about the "internal" evidence. The external evidence is clearly skewed toward the late date, and you know it. You also should know, if you do not, that almost all scholars who are not preterists accept the late date.

So you did...but that hardly makes it so Biblewriter. Why would John say nothing in Revelation of the temple having been destroyed? He was there when Jesus prophesied it!

Paul clearly said that Jews who have believed in Christ and Gentiles who have believed in Christ are one. But He also clearly said that that one body is the church. That is a distinctly different concept from the one you are claiming he taught.

This is indeed interesting. You know more about what I believe than I do!!!! Is that why you also know that Paul believed things he never said?

In my thread on Ramans 9-11, I clearly demonstrated that Paul (but actually, the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul) said exactly what I say.

Paul most definitely did not say that Jews and Gentiles are one. he said that Jews who have believed in Jesus and Gentiles who have believed in Jesus are one. This has nothing to do with Jews who have not believed in Jesus or with Gentiles who have not believed in Jesus.

Jews who have not believed in Jesus are still Jews, and nothing more. And Gentiles who have not believed in Jesus are still gentiles, and nothing more.

That is why we have the clear scriptural distinction between these three groups in the words the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write in 1 Corinthians 10:32-33, "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

First let's understand that I'm referring to saved Jews. Those Jews that are in the Church are one with Gentiles...there is NOTHING else Biblewriter!

The "ALL ISRAEL" that will be saved is the Israel of God! It consist of Jews and Gentiles.

Second...you're wrong...how can Jews and Gentiles be built up into a holy temple if there's something else? Why does Paul (nor anyone else for that matter), make no mention of what you state?

There's no special case for Israel's salvation except the remnant that is constantly being saved as Romans 11 states...and that is by God's choice!

Please show how I claim something different from what the scripture says.

What is there other than the church Biblewriter? That is what Christ sent the apostles into the world to build. The church started in Jerusalem Biblewriter. You're not helping your case.

 

[Biblewriter]

So you did...but that hardly makes it so Biblewriter. Why would John say nothing in Revelation of the temple having been destroyed? He was there when Jesus prophesied it!

You keep wanting to tell God what He should have said in the scriptures. I do not consider myself that wise. But be that as it may, why would the Holy Spirit have made a statement about a fact that was already common information and would be well known throughout history? The argument has no merit.

First let's understand that I'm referring to saved Jews. Those Jews that are in the Church are one with Gentiles...there is NOTHING else Biblewriter!

The "ALL ISRAEL" that will be saved is the Israel of God! It consist of Jews and Gentiles.

It is indeed the "Israel of God." But no scripture says that "the Israel of God" is the church. You have been trying to prove this ever since you appeared here, but you cannot, for no scripture says it. All you can do is offer scriptures that you choose to interpret to mean that.

Second...you're wrong...how can Jews and Gentiles be built up into a holy temple if there's something else? Why does Paul (nor anyone else for that matter), make no mention of what you state?

There's no special case for Israel's salvation except the remnant that is constantly being saved as Romans 11 states...and that is by God's choice!

What is there other than the church Biblewriter? That is what Christ sent the apostles into the world to build. The church started in Jerusalem Biblewriter. You're not helping your case.

You are assuming things about what I am saying that I have never said, never implied, and never meant, just as you do to the writings of the apostles.

I have never once said, or even implied, that at the present time God has any other program than the church, or any people other than those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But even as you have ignored many of the explicit statements of the Apostles, you have ignored what I have repeatedly and explicitly said.

The scriptures very clearly say that god will indeed revive the ancient nation of Israel. And they explicitly say that He will being all of them to repentance, and that all of them who survive to that time will be holy.

These are not interpretations of scripture, but what it explicitly says.

But the scriptures also clearly say when this will happen, and it will not be until after God has removed the church from this earth.

Now your argument is based on the concept that "the church is all there is." At the present time, this is true and correct. But you are denying God's right to do as He pleases. He has told us what He intends to do after the church is gone. And this is the part of the Bible that you are refusing to believe.

You are not misunderstanding what these scriptures say. You are refusing to believe them. It is that simple.

 

[ebedmelech]

You keep wanting to tell God what He should have said in the scriptures. I do not consider myself that wise. But be that as it may, why would the Holy Spirit have made a statement about a fact that was already common information and would be well known throughout history? The argument has no merit.{/quote]
No...I told you what John didn't say. He didn't say the temple was destroyed as he wrote Revelation...and he didn't say it be cause it was standing.

It is indeed the "Israel of God." But no scripture says that "the Israel of God" is the church. You have been trying to prove this ever since you appeared here, but you cannot, for no scripture says it. All you can do is offer scriptures that you choose to interpret to mean that.

I don't have to prove it Biblewriter. The NT call believers several things.

*The Church
*The Israel of God
*A Chosen Generation
*Saints
*A Royal Priesthood
*A Holy Nation

There's more...but I think you get it.

You are assuming things about what I am saying that I have never said, never implied, and never meant, just as you do to the writings of the apostles.

That may be true...but point it out.

I have never once said, or even implied, that at the present time God has any other program than the church, or any people other than those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I didn't say you did...what I said is what I always say...Israel is nothing prophetically.

But even as you have ignored many of the explicit statements of the Apostles, you have ignored what I have repeatedly and explicitly said.

What I have ignored is your literal approach to the scriptures, when it is clear that it's spiritual application. I ignored nothing the apostles said.

Just as you thought the "dispersion" Peter had in mind was the Babylonian exile, when it was the dispersion of the Church from Jerusalem.

The scriptures very clearly say that god will indeed revive the ancient nation of Israel. And they explicitly say that He will being all of them to repentance, and that all of them who survive to that time will be holy.

These are not interpretations of scripture, but what it explicitly says.

But the scriptures also clearly say when this will happen, and it will not be until after God has removed the church from this earth.

No. That's pure imposing on the scripture.

Now your argument is based on the concept that "the church is all there is." At the present time, this is true and correct. But you are denying God's right to do as He pleases. He has told us what He intends to do after the church is gone. And this is the part of the Bible that you are refusing to believe.

You are not misunderstanding what these scriptures say. You are refusing to believe them. It is that simple.

I understand. What I refuse to do is ignore spiritual application when it's appropriate.

I continue to study the scriptures Biblewriter, and the more I do the more I see you're explicitly wrong.

 

[shturt678]

You keep wanting to tell God what He should have said in the scriptures. I do not consider myself that wise. But be that as it may, why would the Holy Spirit have made a statement about a fact that was already common information and would be well known throughout history? The argument has no merit.{/quote]
No...I told you what John didn't say. He didn't say the temple was destroyed as he wrote Revelation...and he didn't say it be cause it was standing.


I don't have to prove it Biblewriter. The NT call believers several things.

*The Church
*The Israel of God
*A Chosen Generation
*Saints
*A Royal Priesthood
*A Holy Nation

There's more...but I think you get it.


That may be true...but point it out.


I didn't say you did...what I said is what I always say...Israel is nothing prophetically.


What I have ignored is your literal approach to the scriptures, when it is clear that it's spiritual application. I ignored nothing the apostles said.

Just as you thought the "dispersion" Peter had in mind was the Babylonian exile, when it was the dispersion of the Church from Jerusalem.


No. That's pure imposing on the scripture.


I understand. What I refuse to do is ignore spiritual application when it's appropriate.

I continue to study the scriptures Biblewriter, and the more I do the more I see you're explicitly wrong.

to ebedmelech ... ur absolutely correct with ur "explicit wording" where the Bible clearly defines and formulates the structure of thoughts, scrutinizing ur example at Rom.2:28, 29, understanding this valuable passage BACKWARDS from the English to the ancient Greek missing my interpretation of the former approaching the interpretation FORWARD from the way they thought, ancient Greek, to the English ... which sadly u will have to agree to disagree to, doing much harm to this passage due to limited time and space at this moment: Ur missing contextually --- not just the outward application counts with ?God, whatever men may think, but the inward acceptance and appropriation mediated by the outward means .... Yes, baptism, too, profits when our lives show that this baptism has gone to our heart and spirit and is not just compliance with a written record --- Paul destroys the moralist because it is a false gospel that hinders the success of the true gospel. this true gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation for all men and in the very first place for both Jew and Greek. When we end in half-truths, highlight "we," we 100% of the time water down God's power which i'm certainly guilty of ... hope this helps. thank u again .... learning form u sir.

 

[shturt678]

to ebedmelech It's rough out there and us Amills. have to stick together ... lol and no lol ... Futurist hold that Revelation was written before 70A.D. (54-68A.D.) where us Amills. hold firmly to that Revelation was written 95, 96A.D. ... simple mistake, i do it all the time ... no refute or correction intended ... for any Futurist watching, try and remove the 7 different endings in Revelation showing Revelation not chronological, English way of thinking, but parallel, no no, better yet synchronous or something like this ... Rev.6:12, etc.; 7:9, etc.; 11:15, etc.; 14:7, etc.; 16:17, etc.; 19:11, etc.; 20:7, etc. ... decades ago i also was a Futurist and the former helped me escape this English way of thinking ... sorry little bruttle (not a work, lol at myself). hope this helps? refutable me.

 

[shturt678]

You keep wanting to tell God what He should have said in the scriptures. I do not consider myself that wise. But be that as it may, why would the Holy Spirit have made a statement about a fact that was already common information and would be well known throughout history? The argument has no merit.



It is indeed the "Israel of God." But no scripture says that "the Israel of God" is the church. You have been trying to prove this ever since you appeared here, but you cannot, for no scripture says it. All you can do is offer scriptures that you choose to interpret to mean that.



You are assuming things about what I am saying that I have never said, never implied, and never meant, just as you do to the writings of the apostles.

I have never once said, or even implied, that at the present time God has any other program than the church, or any people other than those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But even as you have ignored many of the explicit statements of the Apostles, you have ignored what I have repeatedly and explicitly said.

The scriptures very clearly say that god will indeed revive the ancient nation of Israel. And they explicitly say that He will being all of them to repentance, and that all of them who survive to that time will be holy.

These are not interpretations of scripture, but what it explicitly says.

But the scriptures also clearly say when this will happen, and it will not be until after God has removed the church from this earth.

Now your argument is based on the concept that "the church is all there is." At the present time, this is true and correct. But you are denying God's right to do as He pleases. He has told us what He intends to do after the church is gone. And this is the part of the Bible that you are refusing to believe.

You are not misunderstanding what these scriptures say. You are refusing to believe them. It is that simple.

to Biblewriter ....thank u for ur refute ... i accept ... have a history of poor lucidity and did poor in Latin classes ... trying to repent of this ... "fide et caritas formula" (faith formed by love that justifies in the light of Jam.2:24 ... i think u would agree with "Text without Context is Pretext" ergo James is dealing with God's subsequent verdict, when, as Paul states it in Rom.4:5, God "declares the ungodly man righteous." Every subsequent verdict is drawn "out of works" and not "out of faith alone." A dead and barren faith does not secure the verdict, let "anyone" say what he will, v.18a. My sub-point ... The fact that these works of genuine faith is evident; dead and barren faith has no works, it is dead and barren for that very reason ... another sub-point ... love = charity from the English ... my point ... agape (object understood with a corresponding higher divine purpose) does not = charity and hopefully lucid here i say in humility and meekness. refutable me, heartfully that is.

 

[Biblewriter]

No...I told you what John didn't say. He didn't say the temple was destroyed as he wrote Revelation...and he didn't say it be cause it was standing.

That is indeed a possible explanation of why it was not stated. But it is by no means a necessary conclusion.

I don't have to prove it Biblewriter. The NT call believers several things.

*The Church
*The Israel of God
*A Chosen Generation
*Saints
*A Royal Priesthood
*A Holy Nation

There's more...but I think you get it.

I agree with all of them excelt the "israel of God" part. Is is pure assumption that this is a reference to the church.

That may be true...but point it out.

My comment was pointing it out.

I didn't say you did...what I said is what I always say...Israel is nothing prophetically.

This is flatly contrary to about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less.

What I have ignored is your literal approach to the scriptures, when it is clear that it's spiritual application. I ignored nothing the apostles said.

It is true, you did not ignore what they said, you just wrested it.

Just as you thought the "dispersion" Peter had in mind was the Babylonian exile, when it was the dispersion of the Church from Jerusalem.

You have made this claim several times, but itis simply incorrect. I gave you the dictionary definition of the word, showing that its use began at the time of the Babylonian exile. But I did not say, or even imply, that peter was speaking of the Babylonian exile. I was presenting the proof that "the strangers of the dispersion" was a standard Jewish term that referred to the Jews that had been scattered over all the world that they knew about.

No. That's pure imposing on the scripture.

I have repeatedly quoted scriptures that explicitly say exactly that. When the scriptures explicitly say that such-and-such is going to happen, it is not "imposing on scripture" to say that it will indeed happen. rather, it is unbelief to claim it will not happen.

I understand. What I refuse to do is ignore spiritual application when it's appropriate.

I continue to study the scriptures Biblewriter, and the more I do the more I see you're explicitly wrong.

As this has grown to a childish "I'm right" - "no, I'm right" argument, it is pointless to continue this exchange.

 

[Douggg]

It refers to the dating of Revelation. Futurist hold that Revelation was written in 95 A.D. so their eschatology holds the prophecy of Revelation will be in the future. Because it's written after the fall of Jerusalem.

Not all futurists. It makes more sense that Revelation was written sometime during Nero's reign.

Doug

 

[ebedmelech]

I agree with all of them excelt the "israel of God" part. Is is pure assumption that this is a reference to the church.

Well Biblewriter, because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not true. What do you do with Paul saying the "children of the flesh" are not the children of God but the "children of promise" are?

It's ok that you don't see it...it's there though.

This is flatly contrary to about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less.

I know. Dealing with spiritual prophetic passages tend to have that effect.

It is true, you did not ignore what they said, you just wrested it.

No wrestling at all Biblewriter...it's there when you have the NT writings of the apostle making it clear.

You have made this claim several times, but itis simply incorrect. I gave you the dictionary definition of the word, showing that its use began at the time of the Babylonian exile. But I did not say, or even imply, that peter was speaking of the Babylonian exile. I was presenting the proof that "the strangers of the dispersion" was a standard Jewish term that referred to the Jews that had been scattered over all the world that they knew about.

That doesn't wash nor does it make sense Biblewriter. Here's why...Peter is writing in about 63 A.D. the Babylonian exile is about 625 B.C., it has no bearing whatsoever on what Peter was saying as well as no applictation. It's the NT era. The church had been dispersed from Jerusalem 34-36 A.D. and that would be fresh in the mind, as well as relative those in the churches Peter writes to. That's what Peter was referring to.

I have repeatedly quoted scriptures that explicitly say exactly that. When the scriptures explicitly say that such-and-such is going to happen, it is not "imposing on scripture" to say that it will indeed happen. rather, it is unbelief to claim it will not happen.

You have quoted them...but is that really what they say, and how it's intended to be understood? You may think so...I don't.

As this has grown to a childish "I'm right" - "no, I'm right" argument, it is pointless to continue this exchange.

Indeed...especially when you get painted in a corner...you bail out by saying "100% interpretation"...that's the typical bail out!

 

[Biblewriter]

Well Biblewriter, because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not true. What do you do with Paul saying the "children of the flesh" are not the children of God but the "children of promise" are?

As I pointed out in my thread on this subject, The Holy Spirit gave several examples to show what He meant by this statement. And every one of the examples was one of some, but not all, of the "children of the flesh" being considered as the "children of promise." Not even one of the examples involved someone who was not one of the :children of the flesh" being counted as one of the "children of promise."

This is flatly contrary to about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less.

I know. Dealing with spiritual prophetic passages tend to have that effect.

Thank you for this admission!

Indeed...especially when you get painted in a corner...you bail out by saying "100% interpretation"...that's the typical bail out!

I really don't understand how you imagine that I have been painted into a corner. "100% interpretation" is not a bailout, it is a simple fact. If there was even one New Testament scripture that actually said what you imagine it teaches, it would be different. But there is not even one such passage, and you know it.

But now that you have admitted that you are aware that your conclusions are "flatly contrary to about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less," my work is finished.

 

[ebedmelech]

As I pointed out in my thread on this subject, The Holy Spirit gave several examples to show what He meant by this statement. And every one of the examples was one of some, but not all, of the "children of the flesh" being considered as the "children of promise." Not even one of the examples involved someone who was not one of the :children of the flesh" being counted as one of the "children of promise."

That's the problem...you pointed it out but you make a wrong application. Paul clearly states that the "children of promise" are ALL who have the "faith of Abraham"...ALL...and he makes that case WITHOUT exception.

Try Romans 4 and 9...as well as Galatians 3. The "children of promise" is ANYONE who belongs to Christ! It is said straight out without exception!

Thank you for this admission!

You're quite welcome.

I really don't understand how you imagine that I have been painted into a corner. "100% interpretation" is not a bailout, it is a simple fact. If there was even one New Testament scripture that actually said what you imagine it teaches, it would be different. But there is not even one such passage, and you know it.

But now that you have admitted that you are aware that your conclusions are "flatly contrary to about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less," my work is finished.

I don't have a problem admitting my position at all Biblewriter. Are you implying that I try to be covert in where I stand? Any passage you want to deal with I'm open to...ANY!

I don't set myself up as an authority. I understand your position very well. I understand it but I don't accept it.

You attempt to speak as if you're the authority around here...you're not. You have a dispensational approach to the scriptures...and you think that proper. I don't accept that approach. Accept that.

How you were painted into a corner was on the "dispersion" of 1 Peter 1:1, 2. When one can clearly see the Babylonian exile is not in view. I posted a cogent and direct response to yours and it makes the case. What was your response? Because you could not refute it you say "100% interpretation".

That was your bailout...to refute my response.