amillennialism?

brother daniel · Jun 16, 2006

ETide said:
When looking at the context of Revelation 20, it becomes obvious that there are a few things tied together here.. ie, they're basically inseparable in the text.

This is why amillennialists insist that Satan is currently bound, and that the First resurrection has already taken place.. because if we're already in the thousand year reign of Christ, as they claim that we are.. then these other things must also follow.. that Satan is bound, and that the first resurrection is past already..

In my estimation, it's fairly easy to show from the scriptures that Satan is not currently bound, and that the first resurrection has not yet taken place.

Amillennialists will obviously differ..

Jesus has given us a glimpes of what is to come.
Trust his word and Holy Spirit, Satan is not yet bound, he is amongst us and knows his time is short.
with love in Christ
brother daniel

ETide · Jun 16, 2006

brother daniel said:
Satan is not yet bound

I agree.

The purpose of that post was to show how the context of Rev 20 ties these things together.

brother daniel · Jun 16, 2006

brother daniel said:
Jesus has given us a glimpes of what is to come.
Trust his word and Holy Spirit, Satan is not yet bound, he is amongst us and knows his time is short.
with love in Christ
brother daniel

Roman based Christanity, East and West is a falling away from the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, lived and taught by Jesus Christ and turning to man pleasing doctrines of Egypt, Israel, [Babylon,IRAQ],[ Persia, IRAN] and Greece,

Amillionnialism is a deceptive concept.

Lets get back to the word of God.
With love in Christ
brother daniel

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

ETide said:
No argument here. You're obviously free to embrace whatever it is that you embrace.

As for the beast and false prophet being taken and cast into the lake of fire by the Lord when He comes with His saints (as described in Revelation 19) and then John writing of their being in the lake of fire in Revelation 20, it seems a little strange to me that folks would suggest that this is happening now, or that it has already happened.. as if to suggest that the Lord has already come with His saints..and placed them there...

First let me apologize for not responding sooner , .

One of the first things I think is important to realize in discussing the timing of events in Revelation is that the Chapter and verse designations are arbitrary.

The were added several hundred years ago to aid in finding passages . . they are not there in the original Greek. But these arbitrary divisions playgames with our minds, for we automatically and subconsiously assume the mean something, even when we know they don't. And it affects how we read and understand the text.

It helps to take all the divisions out.

Now, if we look at what John says . . does he say, "Then what happened next was" ?

Or does he say "then I SAW" "I HEARD"?

We are given the order of events AS HE SAW them . .

In order to justifiably argue that he SAW them in the actual order they have or will occur, one needs to ESTABLISH that position with objective, solid, factual evidence.

I have nevre found any such evidence for establishing such a claim.

Let's look at those passages:

Rev 19:1 .... I HEARD . ..

:11 .....I SAW ....

:17 ....I SAW ......

:18 .... I SAW .....

REV 20:1 ....I SAW ....

:4 ....I SAW ....

He does not say "this is the order in which things will occur" . . that is something many infer as I used to also. But, frnakly, it is not stated.

All we are given here is the order in which he was SHOWN these things. . .

It is merely an ASSUMPTION that all of these thngs occur in consecutive order.

If that ASSUMPTION is in error, then one's interpretation andunderstanding of these passages is also in error!

We must become aware of our assumptions, question our assumptions, test them, . . see if they can be proven . . If they can't, then they shouldn't be permitted to control how we interpret and understand scripture.

But that's just me.. and as mentioned.. you're perfectly free to embrace whatever it is that you embrace.

Just sharing my thoughts on the matter, as others do.

I welcome your thoughts.

There is certainly peace in our Lord Jesus Christ, amen to that !

Amen.

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

brother daniel said:
Roman based Christanity, East and West is a falling away from the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, lived and taught by Jesus Christ and turning to man pleasing doctrines of Egypt, Israel, [Babylon,IRAQ],[ Persia, IRAN] and Greece,

Amillionnialism is a deceptive concept.

Lets get back to the word of God.
With love in Christ
brother daniel

brother daniel,

I would welcome you getting back to the word of God instead of attacking my Church, my faith and my beliefs with such outlandish and preposterous claims.

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

yesterdog said:
Dave Taylor:
You'll probably have a plethora of folks show up soon who will attempt villianize Amillennialism because it is an alternate expectation to their own view.

I think that's rather unfair...but polarizing positions often look at each other unfairly.

Well, the proof is in the pudding so they say.

The plethora may have not shown up yet, but the villianization has most definitely occured. . .

"Amillenialism? APOSTASY"

Was Dave being unfair? Not in my book . . .

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

inhisdebt said:
You have not shown proof to support your position you have simply shown why you disbelieve the scriptures as they are plainly stated.

That is very interesting.

It is not evidence/proof if I offer it, but it IS evidence/proof if YOU offer it. . .

I see . .

So you can see what I see, here is a recap of what transpired:

inhisdebt:
How do the amillinial account for gen 15v18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates
As this has not yet been fullfilled, and how do they account for the prophacies of ezekial.

TLF:
Oh . . but it has been fulfilled. .

The Kingdoms of David and Solomon encompassed the entire area promised to Abraham.

inhisdebt
Not according to the maps in the back of my bible they never encompassed any were near the nile or the euphrates rivers.

TLF:
I can't speak to the maps in the back of your bible.

........ the maps such as what you have do not give the whole picture.

.........Here is a map that shows the extent of Davids Kingdom, where he exercised his authority, which extended from the River Euphrates to the River of Egypt

......I demonstrated for you that the promises of God to Abraham regarding the land have all been fulfilled.

inhisdebt:
You have not shown proof to support your position you have simply shown why you disbelieve the scriptures as they are plainly stated.

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

If you are going to offer a type of evidence (MAPS) as proof for your position, but reject it when the same type of evidence (MAPS) is offered as proof for an opposing position, then this is clearly a double standard.

Considering that the scriptures explicitly state that God fulfilled all the promises regarding the land that He made to Abraham and not one promise was left unfulfilled, and that it was prfectly fine to offer maps as valid evidence and proof for your position, your claim above is absurdly false.

Just because I didn't offer the passage from Joshua in my post to you (which was going to be my next step if you didn't like my map evidence, but I see MatthewHenry beat me too it ) that is no justification for such a response exhibiting such a clear double standard as we see above.

The passage in Joshua also reveals that your accusation regarding my disbelieving the scriptures is utterly false.

I see no benefit in continuing to discuss something with those who choose to hold me to such double standards and rain false accusations in my direction.

Suffice it to say that the dispenationalist belief in a literal 1000 year millenial reign of Christ on earth is COMPLETELY dependent on the belief that there are still promises regarding the land made to Abraham that are as of yet unfulfilled. Inf act, that is where dispenationalism started, with Darby believing that Israel had promises regarding the land given to Abraham that were still unfulfilled. It is THE primary leg upon which dispensationalism stands.

But the historical record (ie as shown on the map I provided) and the biblical record (Joshua where God said EVERYTHING concerning the land promised to Abraham had been fulfilled and NOT ONE THING regarding those promises were left unfulfilled), tell us those promises have been fulfilled . . .

So there are no more promises made to Abraham regarding the land that need to be fulfilled.

Without that mandate, there is no justification to believe that God has or will return Israel to the land promised Abraham.

Without that mandated, there is no justification for a belief that Christ will reign for a literal 1000 years in Israel. There is no promise of a future Israel possessing the land promised Abraham ... ALL the promises concerning the promised land were fulfilled a long, long, long time ago. . . .. and NOTHING was left unfulfilled.

So . . There is no basis for a belief that Israel will exist in the promised land for Christ to reign over . . . . so there is no basis for belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Israel,

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

ETide said:
The main distinction between millennialism and amillennialism is timing..

Many believe that the events spoken of in Revelation chapter 20 pertain to the future. These can be considered millennialists.. ie, they're expecting a literal thousand year reign of Christ in the future.

Actually, they are called PRE-Millenialists.

And they are relatively FEW in number . . not many.

The vast majority of Christendom rejects premillienalism.

Many believe that the events spoken of in Revelation chapter 20 pertain to the here and now..ie, that we're already in the millennial kingdom of Christ.. These are considered amillennialists because they reject a future thousand year reign and consider it to be taking place right now.

MOST believe this . . and we reject a future literal 1000 year reign of Christ . . .

The scripture is the same, it's simply that one camp believes that it pertains to the future whereas the other camp believes that it pertains to the here and now.

timing..

Yes, that is correct. But it is nlt as simplistic as that either . . it is not just timing, but other factors, such as: is the 1000 year period literal or symbolic?

Here are the verses for the record..

Revelation 20:1-6

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Just look at the last line . .

'they shall be priets of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Then look at this:

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings[ and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Notice several things:

John writes this BEFORE he begins relating his vision, so it is not part of the revelation and is not full of symbolism.
John clearly relates we have already:
1. been made kings and priests - this is something already done, not something waiting to be done in the future . .
  1. just as we are 1) loved and 2)washed in the blood of the lamb and this is something already done, not something waiting to be done in the future
Christ is reigning over the kings of the earth NOW, as of when John penned those words .. . John in no way gives any indication this is something that isn't going to happen until sometime in the future

Now look at this:

EPH 1:19-21 ......That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.

EPH 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

All this is in the past, not future, tense . .

Being seated at the right hand of God concerns authority and rule . . .we see Christ is ruling over the kings of the earth now and has been since before John penned those words.

We are SEATED with Christ NOW . . .this is not something waiting to happen in the future.

The passage you presented from Rev 20 needs to be understood in light of these scriptures. . . . . .

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

yesterdog said:
Why not?

I went to a Baptist church for a number of years...and they took them as literal numbers. I see no reason not to take them as literal numbers.

Because numbers in Revelation are symbolic, as is pretty much everything in Revelation . . it is a book of the apocalyptic genre, a genre which is highly symbolic and in which numbers are used in highly symbolic ways.

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

yesterdog said:
And the amillennial view is Augustinian.

Am I correct?

No . . the amillenial view predates Augustine.

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

LittleLambofJesus said:
I won't. One's view is just as good as another.
So they interpreted the Bible for you? Who interprets it for you now?

1 John 2:18 Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many--whence we know that it is the last hour;

That is a very good verse to give . .

1 John 2:18 Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many--whence we know that it is the last hour

When John penned those words, it was the LAST HOUR, and that was in APOSTOLIC times (ie in the time of the Apostles).

It has been the last hour ever since apostolic times . . we are still in the last hour.

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

ETide said:
Most would agree that it is..

It has been said that he (Augustine) originally held to a millennial view but then later changed his mind and considered it as already taking place.. in the here and now.

Vast portions of Christendom are amillennial.. ie, the RCC, the EOC, and even many Protestant denominations.. although there are still many folks who hold to a millennial viewpoint as well.

But I'm pretty sure that most of it stems from Augustine's view of Rev 20. Perhaps somebody will comment on this who has studied it out in a little more detail..

Augustine was not the originator of the amillenial view, the Church was before Augustine.

Augustine wa premillenial early on, and then changed to the amillenial position already embraced by the Church. He helped to flesh it out more in writing.

The premillenialist viewpoint was pretty much done in by Origen and others by the 3rd century. Augustine was 4th-5th century.

Peace

thereselittleflower · Jun 17, 2006

ETide said:
When looking at the context of Revelation 20, it becomes obvious that there are a few things tied together here.. ie, they're basically inseparable in the text.

This is why amillennialists insist that Satan is currently bound, and that the First resurrection has already taken place.. because if we're already in the thousand year reign of Christ, as they claim that we are.. then these other things must also follow.. that Satan is bound, and that the first resurrection is past already..

In my estimation, it's fairly easy to show from the scriptures that Satan is not currently bound, and that the first resurrection has not yet taken place.

Amillennialists will obviously differ..

What is the first resurrection?

Peace

ETide · Jun 17, 2006

thereselittleflower said:
What is the first resurrection?

In the context of Revelation 20 it is those who live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and who had not received his mark..and who were beheaded for their testimony.

So in that context it pertains to a physical resurrection of the dead, ie, beheaded people according to the text itself.

AND, because we know from Revelation 19 that the beast and the false prophet are taken and cast into the lake of fire by the Lord when He comes with His saints.. we can place this into a future context.

Unless.. one believes that the Lord has already come with His saints and has already cast the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire...? ?

thereselittleflower · Jun 18, 2006

ETide said:
In the context of Revelation 20 it is those who live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and who had not received his mark..and who were beheaded for their testimony.

Are you sure this is future?

Let me explain.

You are assuming it is future because of how you read the contextual clues, taking everything in chronological order even though what John gives us is the order in which he saw them, yet he does not tell us if they are chronological or not.

So we have this assumption in play here.

What if that assumption is wrong?

Let me give you a different take on verse 4

We are in the thousand years now . . the thousand years are of unknown length . . already almost 2000 years and could be thousands more . . If a day is as a thousand years, think of how many days there are in a thousand years and multiply that by a thousand . .

What I am getting at is there is no knowning how much time this symbolic number actually representes . .it is a round number symbolically representing a very, very long time.

Now, those who were beheaded . . these are the martyrs . .

The martyrs are alive now . . they are in heaven. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

They are reigning with Christ right now in heaven. Chrsit is reigning over the kings of the earth right now, and has been since the first century (Rev 1:5)

So . . I get back to my question, what is the first resurection?

Is it the physical resurrection at the end of all tings?

Or is it the resurrection we all share in when we are baptized?

What do the scripture tell us about ourselves?

We have died, been buried and RAISED with Christ!

When Christ was raised, he was RESURRECTED.

If we have been raised with Christ, we have been RESURRECTED with Him. We have part in His Resurrection the FIRST resurrection.

This is the FIRST resurrection.

Read it again . .

Blessed is he who HATH PART IN the first resurrection . .

Baptism into Christ's death and Resurrection!

:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

They shall be priests . .. and shall reign. . . .

Again, what do the scriptures say about us now?

We are kings and priests NOW . .

Christ is reigning over the kings of the earth NOW

We are seated with him at the right hand of God, in the place of power and authority, NOW

they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

This is our state NOW and has been the state of all believers since the beginning of the Church almost 2000 years ago!

If you take away the assumption it HAS to be a future event, if you take way the assumption that what John saw was in chronological order, then other possibilities open up like a flower . . .

Assumptions can be dangerous things . . .

Peace

ETide · Jun 18, 2006

Are you sure this is future?

Let me explain.

You are assuming it is future because of how you read the contextual clues, taking everything in chronological order even though what John gives us is the order in which he saw them, yet he does not tell us if they are chronological or not.

So we have this assumption in play here.

What if that assumption is wrong?

You have brought up the issue of chronological order a couple of times now, although it is not so much a matter of order as it is a matter of contextual connection.

The beast and the false prophet are connected with the Lord Jesus Christ coming with His saints, as they will both be taken at that time (when He comes) and cast alive into the lake of fire.

So this makes the beast and the false prophet absolutely connected to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with His saints, unless of course you believe that the Lord has already come with His saints as described in Revelation 19..?

So again, its a connection.. they are tied together to the same event, ie, the Lords coming. I also have mentioned 2 Thess 2 which speaks of the Lord coming and destroying the man of sin with the brightness of His coming at that time.

In my estimation, these things are not difficult. Theyre simple scriptural facts linking these things together.

The same connections exist in Rev 20, ie, Satan being bound, the first resurrection, and the thousand year reign of those who had not worshipped the beast or his image and who had not received his mark upon their hand or their forehead.

Let me give you a different take on verse 4

Im aware of the amillennial take on these verses.

We are in the thousand years now . . the thousand years are of unknown length . . already almost 2000 years and could be thousands more . . If a day is as a thousand years, think of how many days there are in a thousand years and multiply that by a thousand .

What I am getting at is there is no knowning how much time this symbolic number actually representes . .it is a round number symbolically representing a very, very long time.

This is your assumption, that were already in the thousand years as described in Revelation 20. A thousand years is a defined length of time and yet you assume that it is an unknown length of time. Youre obviously free to make this assumption, others choose not to make that assumption.

And it is scriptural to say that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. We also know from scripture that the Day of the Lord is forthcoming.. ie, it shall come as a thief in the night to those that are not prepared.. and this Day is well documented throughout the scriptures.. again, 2 Thess 2 speaks of the Day of Christ which is the Day of the Lord.

Now, those who were beheaded . . these are the martyrs . .

The martyrs are alive now . . they are in heaven. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

They are reigning with Christ

rightnow in heaven. Chrsit is reigning over the kings of the earth right now, and has been since the first century (Rev 1:5)

So again, you assume that the people described in Rev 20 are past martyrs.. even though the text tells us that these had not worshipped the beast or his image.. that they received not his mark.. a beast that is connected with our Lord's coming, and said to be taken and cast into the lake of fire when the Lord comes with His saints..

The Lord is now seated at the right hand of the Father, waiting til His enemies be made His footstool.. and Hebrews teaches us that we see not yet all things put under Him.. because these are still the times of the Gentiles.. and the Lord told His disciples that Jerusalem would be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Gentiles still have dominion over this planet today, and Satan is still the god of this world who blinds the minds of those that believe not the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is that spirit that now works in the children of disobedience.

And yet amillennialists preach that satan in bound..?

Christ is still building His church, calling out a people for His name.. and Paul says that Israel is blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..

So . . I get back to my question, what is the first resurection?

Is it the physical resurrection at the end of all tings?

Or is it the resurrection we all share in when we are baptized?

What do the scripture tell us about ourselves?

We have died, been buried and

RAISED

with Christ!

When Christ was raised, he was RESURRECTED.

If we have been raised with Christ, we have been RESURRECTED with Him. We have part in His Resurrection the FIRST resurrection.

This is the FIRST resurrection.

Read it again . .

Blessed is he who HATH PART IN the first resurrection . .

Baptism into Christ's death and Resurrection!

:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
They shall be priests . .. and shall reign. . . .

Again, what do the scriptures say about us now?

We are kings and priests NOW . .

Christ is reigning over the kings of the earth NOW

We are seated with him at the right hand of God, in the place of power and authority, NOW
they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
This is our state NOW and has been the state of all believers since the beginning of the Church almost 2000 years ago!

It is absolutely true that the church of God is a heavenly entity and that we were sealed with the Spirit of promise after we heard and after we believed the gospel of our salvation. That Spirit of promise is said to be the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory.

In Romans 8 Paul makes it perfectly clear that we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies which he speaks of as the manifestion of the sons of God. His people (as does the creation itself) groan and hope
in these things.

Its an awful mistake when Christendom preaches that the resurrection is past already (as Paul says these have erred concerning the truth), and teaches that our new birth and life in the resurrected Christ is somehow the first resurrection as it is described in Rev 20.. this robs the gospel of its most foundational aspect which is the resurrection of the dead.

Paul speaks of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 and he does speak of Christ being the firstfruits.. and then afterwards those that are His (and when will that be..) AGAIN, at His coming..

So again, the resurrection is connected with the Lord coming..

If you take away the assumption it HAS to be a future event, if you take way the assumption that what John saw was in chronological order, then other possibilities open up like a flower . .

So, unless you can make a distinction between an order and a contextual connection, youll most likely continue in your assumption of these things pertaining to the past or present.

Assumptions can be dangerous things . . .

No kidding, so thank God for the simplicity, power, and precision of His word which lives and abides.. how that He has made these connections in scripture so that we can make them as well.

inhisdebt · Jun 18, 2006

thereselittleflower said:
That is very interesting.

It is not evidence/proof if I offer it, but it IS evidence/proof if YOU offer it. . .

I see . .

So you can see what I see, here is a recap of what transpired:
inhisdebt:
How do the amillinial account for gen 15v18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates
As this has not yet been fullfilled, and how do they account for the prophacies of ezekial.

TLF:
Oh . . but it has been fulfilled. .

The Kingdoms of David and Solomon encompassed the entire area promised to Abraham.

inhisdebt
Not according to the maps in the back of my bible they never encompassed any were near the nile or the euphrates rivers.

TLF:
I can't speak to the maps in the back of your bible.

........ the maps such as what you have do not give the whole picture.

.........Here is a map that shows the extent of Davids Kingdom, where he exercised his authority, which extended from the River Euphrates to the River of Egypt

......I demonstrated for you that the promises of God to Abraham regarding the land have all been fulfilled.

inhisdebt:
You have not shown proof to support your position you have simply shown why you disbelieve the scriptures as they are plainly stated.

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

If you are going to offer a type of evidence (MAPS) as proof for your position, but reject it when the same type of evidence (MAPS) is offered as proof for an opposing position, then this is clearly a double standard.

Considering that the scriptures explicitly state that God fulfilled all the promises regarding the land that He made to Abraham and not one promise was left unfulfilled, and that it was prfectly fine to offer maps as valid evidence and proof for your position, your claim above is absurdly false.

Just because I didn't offer the passage from Joshua in my post to you (which was going to be my next step if you didn't like my map evidence, but I see MatthewHenry beat me too it ) that is no justification for such a response exhibiting such a clear double standard as we see above.

The passage in Joshua also reveals that your accusation regarding my disbelieving the scriptures is utterly false.

I see no benefit in continuing to discuss something with those who choose to hold me to such double standards and rain false accusations in my direction.

Suffice it to say that the dispenationalist belief in a literal 1000 year millenial reign of Christ on earth is COMPLETELY dependent on the belief that there are still promises regarding the land made to Abraham that are as of yet unfulfilled. Inf act, that is where dispenationalism started, with Darby believing that Israel had promises regarding the land given to Abraham that were still unfulfilled. It is THE primary leg upon which dispensationalism stands.

But the historical record (ie as shown on the map I provided) and the biblical record (Joshua where God said EVERYTHING concerning the land promised to Abraham had been fulfilled and NOT ONE THING regarding those promises were left unfulfilled), tell us those promises have been fulfilled . . .

So there are no more promises made to Abraham regarding the land that need to be fulfilled.

Without that mandate, there is no justification to believe that God has or will return Israel to the land promised Abraham.

Without that mandated, there is no justification for a belief that Christ will reign for a literal 1000 years in Israel. There is no promise of a future Israel possessing the land promised Abraham ... ALL the promises concerning the promised land were fulfilled a long, long, long time ago. . . .. and NOTHING was left unfulfilled.

So . . There is no basis for a belief that Israel will exist in the promised land for Christ to reign over . . . . so there is no basis for belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Israel,

Peace

1st of all i didnt start out to argue your position with you i was curiouse as to the answer to my question. A map of any sort is not evedince to support any issue as maps are a picture of a particular time frame at best, and as we seen conflicts, can develop quickly from differing sources. scripture however is a differant story, one can not argue with what is plainly stated in scripture. That is why i quickly conseaded the issue when dave presented the text from joshua at least as far as Gen is concerned. However no one has yet to show plainly stated scripture to support an amillinial pos.
You have argued against my natural understanding of scripture, and you have shown the error in my assumptions from Gen. But to effectivly support your position you will need to know and be ready to present your position through scripture, Assumming that the scripture as its given is alligorical, is not support for your position, it is simply an argument (and a weak one) against mine. To show me support for your position through scripture you will need to find the scripture (it is out there) and present it with a convincing argument for your position (Im not convinced it exists). Gen was only one small portion of the premillinial pos, in fact i was not even aware of it when i choose the premillinial pos. oh and my views are not dispensational either in fact i disagree with large portions of dispinsationalism. But it would take convincing scripture and argument to lead me towards amillinial indeed. Take your best shot.

LittleLambofJesus · Jun 18, 2006

But the historical record (ie as shown on the map I provided) and the biblical record (Joshua where God said EVERYTHING concerning the land promised to Abraham had been fulfilled and NOT ONE THING regarding those promises were left unfulfilled), tell us those promises have been fulfilled . . .

So there are no more promises made to Abraham regarding the land that need to be fulfilled.

Without that mandate, there is no justification to believe that God has or will return Israel to the land promised Abraham.

Without that mandated, there is no justification for a belief that Christ will reign for a literal 1000 years in Israel. There is no promise of a future Israel possessing the land promised Abraham ... ALL the promises concerning the promised land were fulfilled a long, long, long time ago. . . .. and NOTHING was left unfulfilled.

So . . There is no basis for a belief that Israel will exist in the promised land for Christ to reign over . . . . so there is no basis for belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Israel,

Peace

That is my view also. I have even heard some wild theories about the jews building ANOTHER temple during the Millenium after the next one is destroyed, or whatever one is showing in Revelation 11!!!!!
Egads

Matt 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.; 38 "See! Your house is left to you a Wilderness

Revelation 11:1:And given to me a reed like unto [a] staff saying: Be Ye Arousing! and Measure Ye! the Sanctuary/Naos of the God, and the Altar and the Ones worshipping in it! 2 And the Court [#833], the one within/without[#2081] the Sanctuary/Naos [#3485] be Casting- Out! [#1544] Out-side [#1854] and ye should not be measuring it/her, because she was given to the nations/gentiles, and the city, the holy, they shall be treading [#3961] for 40 and 2 months.

ApostolicFaith · Jun 18, 2006

thereselittleflower said:
No . . the amillenial view predates Augustine.

Peace

Yes, we have evidence of amillennialism dating back (outside the NT) to the second and third centuries. Not only that, but the few who taught premillennialism also held as part of that belief a heretical view of life after death - a view which eventually developed into the Roman Catholic purgatory teaching.
aF

ETide · Jun 19, 2006

ApostolicFaith said:
Yes, we have evidence of amillennialism dating back (outside the NT) to the second and third centuries.

I would be interested in seeing these evidences of amillennialism dating back this far, can you provide them ?

Not only that, but the few who taught premillennialism also held as part of that belief a heretical view of life after death - a view which eventually developed into the Roman Catholic purgatory teaching.
aF

How do you know that there were only a few who taught or believed in premillennialism ? What is your evidence for that statement ?

amillennialism?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency