Hi Sov
I wish that was true Sov. a few posts ago you posted one fragment of what I said and said see you admit you have no proff they were premill when the whole paragraph clearly stated I had posted proof more than once already.
As to being fair to the reader your post is literally a couple above and I am sure anyone who wants to read it can. I personally never just read what someone has quoted I find the original post and read the whole thing. When you quote a massive section it hides most of it anyway. However I do not want you to judge me as unfair so I will amend the post.
This was the exact point I was making at the end of my last post. I showed how you added meaning to everything you quoted and that was all very clear in to me. I then said I was equally sure that you would not see it as such and would say I did not refute anything you said. Which is what you have now Done.
I have shown dozens of verses that show that both of these Church Fathers believed that we did not receive our inheritance unti Jesus returns. You have presented nothing to show anything different. You have taken his words and added meaning to fit your belief meaning that is just not implied in either the text or the subject at hand which was strife over who had been elected Bishop at Corinth.
You claim Clement was amill please show me were he says the 1,000 years is not literal which is the actual meaning of the term Amillennial as I showed you. Amillenial does not mean you dod or do not see the 1,000 years as partially carnal in nature. It means that one believes the 1,000 years of revelation has begun. You did not present a single verse where Clement says the 1,000 years has begun.
I am sorry you are mistaken. Here is why you are seeing my words in light of your belief and thus you are assigning a series of understandings to them based on that belief. Amills believe the promise is fulfilled in two different steps one at baptism or death and the other after Judgement day when amills at least most amills I know believe there is a new heaven and a new earth.
You believe the first stage of the promise fulfillment is a spiritual life with Jesus in Heaven that is the 1,000 years..... which by the way early amills believed would end at about 1,000 AD because many early amills believed the 1,000 years was literal just not here on earth Including Pope Sylvester II. Others like Irenaeus predicted 500 AD based on that it was 6,000 years from creation. The 1,000 years is only meaning a long time was an adaption after the 1,000 years from Christ had passed. First most Scholars said well maybe it was 1,000 years after his death not his birth so 1033 AD. It was after this the 1,000 years is not being literal became a thing.
Now on the other hand I see the promise as fulfilled in the day of the Lord which I believe Peter says is 1,000 years long. I know you do not agree but that matters not since we are talking about what I said in my last post. I do not see a split in the fulfillment of the inheritance / Promise I see us only getting the inheritance at Jesus' return. I do not believe that fulfillment is part in heaven and then part after judgement of the wicked. I see the start of the day of the lord coming as a thief catching the vast majority of Christians by surprise. The Saints are raised, Satan is locked up so he can deceive the nations no more. So No More War. The main point here is I do not believe we get part of the promise before Jesus return as amills do. It is not a future manifestation of the kingdom that is exclusively premill it is that only certain variants of premill do not believe in the splitting of the promise part at baptism or death and the rest ie the glorious Kingdom after Judgement day. I simply do not believe scripture supports a straight to heaven doctrine of souls. Everyone is resurrected at Jesus' return which is the Day of the Lord The saved at the beginning and the lost at the end. When heaven and earth will be destroyed and there will be a new heaven and earth.
And I am still waiting for you to produce a verse from either Father that says the 1,000 years is not literal and that the Inheritance and the promise are split into two pieces.
You have not and can not because it does not exist. So you rely on trying to show other verses to back your point.
The reality is both of these men most likely never even read Revelation at the time they made these writings as they both were most likely written before Revelation was written. The whole 1,000 years is no where else in scripture. So you can not possibly show me a text that directly talks about this 1,000 year period from either of these church Fathers and neither can I. What Ican show is that they both believed Daniel was not fulfilled and that the inheritance only comes at Jesus' return.
Now unless it is your position that Jesus has already returned once and will return again then these Fathers could not have been amill.
First, you do not fully quote what you are responding to. You just present the headings. That is not fair to the reader. Can you amend that? I always fully quote you so that the reader can judge whether I am being fair and accurate or not.
I wish that was true Sov. a few posts ago you posted one fragment of what I said and said see you admit you have no proff they were premill when the whole paragraph clearly stated I had posted proof more than once already.
As to being fair to the reader your post is literally a couple above and I am sure anyone who wants to read it can. I personally never just read what someone has quoted I find the original post and read the whole thing. When you quote a massive section it hides most of it anyway. However I do not want you to judge me as unfair so I will amend the post.
Second, it just seems like you are out to defend Premil at any cost, rather than let the evidence speak for itself. I do believe you are being objective here. My last post actually rebuts everything you have just said here, so it is pointless me repeating myself. I refer you back to it.
This was the exact point I was making at the end of my last post. I showed how you added meaning to everything you quoted and that was all very clear in to me. I then said I was equally sure that you would not see it as such and would say I did not refute anything you said. Which is what you have now Done.
I have shown dozens of verses that show that both of these Church Fathers believed that we did not receive our inheritance unti Jesus returns. You have presented nothing to show anything different. You have taken his words and added meaning to fit your belief meaning that is just not implied in either the text or the subject at hand which was strife over who had been elected Bishop at Corinth.
You claim Clement was amill please show me were he says the 1,000 years is not literal which is the actual meaning of the term Amillennial as I showed you. Amillenial does not mean you dod or do not see the 1,000 years as partially carnal in nature. It means that one believes the 1,000 years of revelation has begun. You did not present a single verse where Clement says the 1,000 years has begun.
Third, to keep alleging that a belief in a future manifestation of the kingdom is exclusively a Premil expectation is at very least naive, at worst deliberately misleading. If you want people to take you seriously, at least keep to the truth. Amils believe the kingdom Of God is coming soon in all its final, perfect and eternal glory.
I am sorry you are mistaken. Here is why you are seeing my words in light of your belief and thus you are assigning a series of understandings to them based on that belief. Amills believe the promise is fulfilled in two different steps one at baptism or death and the other after Judgement day when amills at least most amills I know believe there is a new heaven and a new earth.
You believe the first stage of the promise fulfillment is a spiritual life with Jesus in Heaven that is the 1,000 years..... which by the way early amills believed would end at about 1,000 AD because many early amills believed the 1,000 years was literal just not here on earth Including Pope Sylvester II. Others like Irenaeus predicted 500 AD based on that it was 6,000 years from creation. The 1,000 years is only meaning a long time was an adaption after the 1,000 years from Christ had passed. First most Scholars said well maybe it was 1,000 years after his death not his birth so 1033 AD. It was after this the 1,000 years is not being literal became a thing.
Now on the other hand I see the promise as fulfilled in the day of the Lord which I believe Peter says is 1,000 years long. I know you do not agree but that matters not since we are talking about what I said in my last post. I do not see a split in the fulfillment of the inheritance / Promise I see us only getting the inheritance at Jesus' return. I do not believe that fulfillment is part in heaven and then part after judgement of the wicked. I see the start of the day of the lord coming as a thief catching the vast majority of Christians by surprise. The Saints are raised, Satan is locked up so he can deceive the nations no more. So No More War. The main point here is I do not believe we get part of the promise before Jesus return as amills do. It is not a future manifestation of the kingdom that is exclusively premill it is that only certain variants of premill do not believe in the splitting of the promise part at baptism or death and the rest ie the glorious Kingdom after Judgement day. I simply do not believe scripture supports a straight to heaven doctrine of souls. Everyone is resurrected at Jesus' return which is the Day of the Lord The saved at the beginning and the lost at the end. When heaven and earth will be destroyed and there will be a new heaven and earth.
Fifth, I am still waiting for you to present one reference to a thousand years in Barnabas or Clement, or any mention of any of the Premil tenets. You have furnished me with nothing so far, as I predicted. Remember, it was you making the big claims. The burden of proof is with you. First principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." So, the ball is in your court!
And I am still waiting for you to produce a verse from either Father that says the 1,000 years is not literal and that the Inheritance and the promise are split into two pieces.
You have not and can not because it does not exist. So you rely on trying to show other verses to back your point.
The reality is both of these men most likely never even read Revelation at the time they made these writings as they both were most likely written before Revelation was written. The whole 1,000 years is no where else in scripture. So you can not possibly show me a text that directly talks about this 1,000 year period from either of these church Fathers and neither can I. What Ican show is that they both believed Daniel was not fulfilled and that the inheritance only comes at Jesus' return.
Now unless it is your position that Jesus has already returned once and will return again then these Fathers could not have been amill.
Upvote
0