amillennialism?

As for genre, yes, I understand what that is, although all scripture is God breathed and is living, it abides. It's not a static or lifeless document that fits into a category. If that's what you believe about the Revelation of Jesus Christ, then you are sadly mistaken in my estimation.

Scripture is spiritually discerned and it is living. Let me say that again, it is LIVING. It is just as living and powerful to me as it was to a brother or a sister IN CHRIST in the first century.

You may not believe that, and again, that's fine, I'm not out to convince you of anything.

I have not even begun to exahust the vast and unserachable riches of Christ which are found in Him and in His living and abiding word.

So, to suggest that the living and powerful word of God which we have in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is of some sort of genre, or category, simply misses the immensity and limitless living nature of it altogether.. again, in my estimation at least.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Where do you think this "Lake of Fire" is?

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm

[SIZE=+1]LUKE 16:24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'" [/SIZE]

Click to expand...

I can't say where the lake of fire is as it is described in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, although I can say with assurance that both death and hell are ultimately cast into the lake of fire and that this is considered the second death.

ETide said:

therese,

You believe that the events described in Rev 20 are taking place now. That's fine, you're entitled to that belief. It is what you believe and you have shared some reasons why you believe this way, and of course there are many others that believe the same way that you do.

Let me ask you this, is there any possibility at all that you may be incorrect..?

Click to expand...

I could be . . postmillenialism (which also does not believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ and understands the texts we are discussing are sybolic) may be right . . or it may be a combniation of the two or partial preterism may be correct or it may be a combination of 2 or 3 of these - they all have elements in common.

But one thing I am UTTERLY and COMPLETEY convinced of is that pre-millenialism is wrong

And that is because I have dug deep into the guts of this belief system and have found no solid foundation for any of the necessary assumptions one must hold in order to believe it.

I no longer have any type of reaction to the number 666 even though for 30 years I was dispenationalist and had all the usual, deep seated reactions people have to that number.

These reactions to that number and other catch phrases of dispensationails are GONE! PRAISE GOD!


Now, is it possible you might be wrong?

Anyway, I have obviously also shared reasons as to why I believe that the events described in Rev 20 pertain to future events. I believe that there are clear scriptural evidences supporting this position.

Click to expand...

You have given your reasons . . but not shown your justifications for your reasons.

Is there the possibility that I am incorrect. Absolutely, although again, the scriptural support for these things seems to be overwhelming in my estimation.

Click to expand...

Are you sure the assumptions underlying your estimation and understandings are correct?


Are you more interested in holding on to these assumptions, or are you more interested in the TRUTH?


For me, Truth MATTERS. and I am willing to give up my assumptions for the truth any day!

You do not believe that.

Click to expand...

Not only do I not believe it, I KNOW it is not true.

Do you want to know how?

So what, it's not a big deal to me. I am not out to convince you of anything, that's the job of the Spirit of God.. He leads us into all truth and of things to come.

I have no desire to debate, but rather to share our positions as we understand them.

Click to expand...

To do this we must have a starting place where we have understanding in common.


That is why I suggested we start with the word genre which is very important to understanding what I am saying.

Do you want to understand what I am saying?


Are you willing to start here?

This is profitable to both camps as they can see both sides of the fence so to speak.

So, have at it..

Click to expand...

Are you willing to start with the word "genre"?


Please tell me what you understand by this word,genre?

How do you think it affects how we understand what we read in the bible?




Peace

So we're even then therese, I am absolutely convinced that amillennialism is incorrect. There's not a shred of doubt in my mind.

As I have shared already, Satan is not currently bound so that he can not deceive the nations. The First resurrection has not yet taken place, and we are not currently within the millennial reign of Christ at this time.

Speaking of time, according to the scriptures, the Lord is building His church, taking out a people for His name. Gentile nations still have dominion over this planet and satan is still the god of this world who now works in the children of disobedience.

As for the resurrection, it is clearly linked with His coming in scripture. Paul also tells us that there are some who say that the resurrection is past already, he says that these have erred concerning the truth and that their word eats like a cancer.

The foundation of the gospel of Christ is the resurrection of the dead. His children have been given the spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the body. Paul speaks of the manifestation of the sons of God in Romans 8, how that we're waiting for that. it has not happened yet, we're still waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies.

So again, in my estimation, these things are overewhelmingly in favor of the Revelation truly speaking of things that shall be hereafter, for the church of God will continue to be built by Him until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.. and this pertains to the things which are..

ETide said:

As for genre, yes, I understand what that is, although all scripture is God breathed and is living, it abides. It's not a static or lifeless document that fits into a category. If that's what you believe about the Revelation of Jesus Christ, then you are sadly mistaken in my estimation.

Click to expand...

How does accepting that there are various genres within scripture mean that

1. scripture is not God breathed - or
2. scripture does not abide - or
3. scripture is static -or
4. scripture is lifeless?????

I see no connection between recognizing that books in the bible fall into different genres and what you have stated this implies . .

Do you believe that books in the bible do not fall into different genres?

Scripture is spiritually discerned and it is living. Let me say that again, it is LIVING. It is just as living and powerful to me as it was to a brother or a sister IN CHRIST in the first century.

You may not believe that, and again, that's fine, I'm not out to convince you of anything.

Click to expand...

I do believe this. But I need you to answer the questions above now . . for I don't understand how you come to those conclusions.

I have not even begun to exahust the vast and unserachable riches of Christ which are found in Him and in His living and abiding word.

So, to suggest that the living and powerful word of God which we have in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is of some sort of genre, or category, simply misses the immensity and limitless living nature of it altogether.. again, in my estimation at least.

Click to expand...

Why?

So you don't believe genres apply to the various books of the bible?




Peace

Simple answer therese, NO, I do not limit the living and powerful word of God to a genre, a category.

AND, I didn't say that you embrace any of the things that I mentioned. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the matter.

If you want to plug the Revelation of Jesus Christ into a favorite genre of yours, then byt all means go ahead. I chose not to do that, I choose to read it prayerfully and carefully and simply ask for the Lord's help in letting it speak to me in a living and powerful way.

He's got a great voice, does He not..?

ETide said:

Simple answer therese, NO, I do not limit the living and powerful word of God to a genre, a category.

AND, I didn't say that you embrace any of the things that I mentioned. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the matter.

If you want to plug the Revelation of Jesus Christ into a favorite genre of yours, then byt all means go ahead. I chose not to do that, I choose to read it prayerfully and carefully and simply ask for the Lord's help in letting it speak to me in a living and powerful way.

He's got a great voice, does He not..?

Click to expand...

If you are interested, I am actually discussing the book of revelation and the NT with the jews over here.
I believe if the Jews ever read through revelation, they would probably be better able to explain it than we are. Peace.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2902747-jews-and-the-new-testament.html

ETide said:

Simple answer therese, NO, I do not limit the living and powerful word of God to a genre, a category.

Click to expand...

The bible cannot be limited to one genre . .

But the various books in the bible fall into different genres.

Now, given your answer, I assume that you mean that the books of the bible do not fall into any genres. . . am I right?


Is there any possiblity that you are wrong about this?

AND, I didn't say that you embrace any of the things that I mentioned. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the matter.

If you want to plug the Revelation of Jesus Christ into a favorite genre of yours, then byt all means go ahead. I chose not to do that, I choose to read it prayerfully and carefully and simply ask for the Lord's help in letting it speak to me in a living and powerful way.

He's got a great voice, does He not..?

Click to expand...

I don't plug the book of Revelation into a favorite genre . . it is not my doing.


Tell me, let's take this down to more of a focused level

Do you believe there are figures of speach in the scriptures? Do you believe everything Jesus said was LITERAL?

Do you believe Jesus meant that we should LITERALLY pluck out our eyes, cut off our hands and feet?



Peace

thereselittleflower said:

The bible cannot be limited to one genre . .

But the various books in the bible fall into different genres.

Now, given your answer, I assume that you mean that the books of the bible do not fall into any genres. . . am I right?

Click to expand...

What I mean is this therese, I do not limit any book of the bible in any way. I consider it the living and abiding word of God. I understand distinctions between books of the Law, books of the prophets, the psalms, proverbs, etc.. although they're still all limitless and dynamic in their ability to speak the heart and mind of God's people.

Is there any possiblity that you are wrong about this?

Click to expand...

I hope that I've made it clear that there is always a possibility of myself being wrong, I am not perfect, I am not God, but I do know that I have Christ in me, my hope of glory, and I know that the spirit of God leads me in understanding and in truth when I humble myself before Him and His word.

Again, I would hope that you too can admit the possibility that you're wrong about this.

I don't plug the book of Revelation into a favorite genre . . it is not my doing.

Click to expand...

Who does then, another man or woman who is just as we are..?

Tell me, let's take this down to more of a focused level

Do you believe there are figures of speach in the scriptures? Do you believe everything Jesus said was LITERAL?

Matthew 18:8-10
8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

​

Do you believe Jesus meant that we should LITERALLY pluck out our eyes, cut off our hands and feet?

Peace

Click to expand...

In the portion you refer to, it would certainly "be better" for a man to pluck out his eye or cut off his hand rather than be cast into hell fire.. certainly that's literal.

There are many things in scripture that are given as examples.. The Lord says that He is the bread of life although I know that He isn't a loaf of bread. He is said to be the true vine although I know that He is not a literal vine. He is said to be the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world although I know that He is not a Lamb.

I find it interesting that the catholic doctrine believes that they literally turn a piece of bread into the flesh and blood of Christ... although many remember Christ in His death every first day of the week and simply receive the elements of the bread and wine as a reminder of His body and of His blood that was shed.

yesterdog said:

And the amillennial view is Augustinian.

Am I correct?

Click to expand...

Only if you listen and accept the many Premillennial websites and teachers who carelessly attempt to make this assignment to Augustine.

If, however, you spend a few weeks reading and studying the Early Church writers who lived in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries A.D. prior to Augustine, you will find that Amillennialism and its attributes, characteristics, and adherents find an unbroken succession back to the Apostles.

The modern teachings of Premillennialism; (a rebuilt earthly temple with animal sacrifices, mortals surviving the 2nd Coming, multiple resurrections of different groups of believers at different times, Satan being bound by a literal chain after the 2nd Coming, the Gog/Magog battle occuring a literal 1000 years after the 2nd Coming, a continuation of the curse of Creation after the 2nd Coming, mortals and immortals co-existing upon the Earth after the 2nd Coming, Israel being promoted in a leadership role over the nations, sin death and rebellion continuing upon the Earth after the 2nd Coming, etc...)....none of these Premillennial characteristics were found in the writings of the Early Christians.

Anyone who is interested in the Early Christian writers and what they believed, should study them for themselves, and not take for granted what any modern-day teacher (myself included) may claim of them.

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..

Click to expand...

When one studies the writings prior to Augustine (who Premillennialism claims fathered Amillennialism), one would expect the Earliest 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Christians to show us a Premillennial interpretation of Satan being bound....

But that is not what the 1-3rd century church, prior to Augustine teach at all. Their view of Satan being bound, ties it specifically to Christ's 1st Advent, and the scriptures that Christ gave saying Satan is bound from deceiving the Gentile Nations.

Here are a few historical excerpts prior to Augustine for those who might be interested:

Irenaeus, (130-200 AD)
Bishop of Lyons, Book 3, C.VIII
"when He spoke of the devil as strong, not absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, the Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way "spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house." Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered."

Irenaeus, (130- 200 AD)
Bishop of Lyons, Book 3, C.XX1
"and the apostate angel of God is destroyed by its voice, being exposed in his true colours, and vanquished by the Son of man keeping the commandment of God. For as in the beginning he enticed man to transgress his Maker's law, and thereby got him into his power; yet his power consists in transgression and apostasy, and with these he bound man [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, it was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. For when Satan is bound, man is set free; since "none can enter a strong man's house and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong man himself." The Lord therefore exposes him as speaking contrary to the word of that God who made all things, and subdues him by means of the commandment. After [the Man had done this], the Word bound him securely as a fugitive from Himself, and made spoil of his goods,-namely, those men whom he held in bondage, and whom he unjustly used for his own purposes. And justly indeed is he led captive, who had led men unjustly into bondage; while man, who had been led captive in times past, was rescued from the grasp of his possessor, according to the tender mercy of God the Father"






Anonymous, Acta Pilati, (150-255 AD)
Chapter 7 & 8
"And again there came the voice of the Son of the Father most high, as it were the voice of a great thunder, saying: Lift up your gates, ye princes; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting gates, and the King of glory will come in. Then Satan and Hades cried out, saying: Who is the king of glory? And it was answered to them in the voice of the Lord: The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.

Then holy David, inflamed with anger against Satan, cried out aloud: Open thy gates, most vile wretch, that the King of glory may come in. In like manner also all the saints of God rose up against Satan, and would have seized him, and divided him among them. And again a cry was heard within: Lift up your gates, ye princes; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall come in. Hades and Satan, at that clear voice, again asked, saying: Who is this king of glory? And it was said to them by that wonderful voice: The Lord of powers, He is the King of glory.

Chap. 8 (24).--And, behold, suddenly Hades trembled, and the gates of death and the bolts were shattered, and the iron bars were broken and fell to the ground, and everything was laid open. And Satan remained in the midst, and stood confounded and downcast, bound with fetters on his feet. And, behold, the Lord Jesus Christ, coming in the brightness of light from on high, compassionate, great, and lowly, carrying a chain in His hand, bound Satan by the neck; and again tying his hands behind him, dashed him on his back into Tartarus, and placed His holy foot on his throat, saying: Through all ages thou hast done many evils; thou hast not in any wise rested. To-day I deliver thee to everlasting fire. And Hades being suddenly summoned, He commanded him, and said: Take this most wicked and impious one, and have him in thy keeping even to that day in which I shall command thee. And he, as soon as he received him, was plunged under the feet of the Lord along with him into the depth of the abyss. "







Victorinus of Petau, (270 - 303 AD)
Commentary on the Apocalypse of the blessed John
"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a chain in his hand. And he held the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into the abyss, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be finished: after this he must be loosed a little season." Those years wherein Satan is bound are in the first advent of Christ, even to the end of the age; and they are called a thousand, according to that mode of speaking, wherein a part is signified by the whole, just as is that passage, "the word which He commanded for a thousand generations,"69 although they are not a thousand. Moreover that he says, "and he cast him into the abyss," he says this, because the devil, excluded from the hearts of believers, began to take possession of the wicked, in whose hearts, blinded day by day, he is shut up as if in a profound abyss. And he shut him up, says he, and put a seal upon him, that he should not deceive the nations until the thousand years should be finished. "He shut the door upon him," it is said, that is, he forbade and restrained his seducing those who belong to Christ. Moreover, he put a seal upon him, because it is hidden who belong to the side of the devil, and who to that of Christ. Moreover, that he says that he is bound and shut up, that he may not seduce the nations, the nations signify the Church, seeing that of them it itself is formed"

"this is the true priest of Christ, and accomplishing the millenary number thoroughly, is thought to reign with Christ; and truly in his case the devil is bound. But he who is entangled in the vices and the dogmas of heretics, in his case the devil is loosed. But that it says that when the thousand years are finished he is loosed, so the number of the perfect saints being completed"









Ante Nicene Fathers (? to 325 AD)
VIII, Chapter VI, "The Descent of Christ into Hell"
"Thou wast nailed on the cross, and placed in the tomb; and now thou art free, and hast destroyed all our power. Art thou then the Jesus about whom the chief satrap Satan told us, that through cross and death thou art to inherit the whole world? Then the King of glory seized the chief satrap Satan by the head, and delivered him to His angels, and said: With iron chains bind his hands and his feet, and his neck, and his mouth. Then He delivered him to Hades, and said: Take him, and keep him secure till my second appearing."









Tyconius, (330 - 390 AD)
Commentary on Revelation, edited in English by Craig R. Koester
"the church had already entered the millennium. Rev 20:2 said that the millennium would begin when Satan was "bound" and Matt 12:29 said that Christ's exorcisms proved that he had already come to "bind" Satan and bring in the kingdom. By placing these texts together Tyconius concluded that the thousand-year kingdom began with the first advent of Christ. People entered this millennial kingdom through the "first resurrection" (Rev 20:4-6), which he identified with baptism; the second resurrection (20:11-13) would be the bodily resurrection at the end of time. The righteous and the unrighteous would exist side by side in the church even during this millennial period. Satan had been "bound" but would not be annihilated until the end."

Dave,

If we look to the writings of men, then we'll find all sorts of things, beliefs, etc.. take Irenaeus for example.. I can show you where he believes in the presence of Christ in the eucharist AND that he believed in a literal thousand year reign of Christ in terrestrial Jerusalem..

So, we can look at scripture or we can look to the words of men who are no different than you or me.

In scripture, in the NT, we're clearly given examples of Satan hindering, of his blinding the minds of those that believe not the gospel, of his spirit being now at work in the children of disobedience.

In the case of the believer, satan is helpless as long as we put on the full armor of God.. but even believers are required to have it on so that we can stand against him.

The context of Rev 20 speaks of his being bound so that he can not deceive the nations.

Do you actually believe that the nations of this world are not deceived at this time.. ? ? Seriously.

Take any of the religions of this world for an example.. where do they come from ? Are they spreading truth or is it a lie, plain and simple.. ?

Are the religions of this world preaching truth or is it deception..?

ETide said:

What I mean is this therese, I do not limit any book of the bible in any way. I consider it the living and abiding word of God. I understand distinctions between books of the Law, books of the prophets, the psalms, proverbs, etc.. although they're still all limitless and dynamic in their ability to speak the heart and mind of God's people.

Click to expand...

I disagree. There are limits as to how we can properly understand the words of scripture .. the possiblities are not limitless as you seem to contend.

When the scriptures say thou shalt not commit adultery, can that be understood as thou shalt commit adultery?

Would you agree that there are limits on how we can understand 'thou shalt not commit adultery" ?


See, there is no such thing as true "limitlessness" regarding God's word, or we would be forced to admit there are not limits in how we can understand the words "thou shalt not commit adultery".

So your premise, unless you are willing to admit that "thou shalt not commit adultery" can be understood "thou shalt commit adultery".


Do you see your dilema?

I hope that I've made it clear that there is always a possibility of myself being wrong, I am not perfect, I am not God, but I do know that I have Christ in me, my hope of glory, and I know that the spirit of God leads me in understanding and in truth when I humble myself before Him and His word.

Again, I would hope that you too can admit the possibility that you're wrong about this.

Click to expand...

I think what needs to happen is to have hidden assumptions tested to see if they really hold up. I found mine regarding premillenialism . . I tested them, rigorously. It would have been much, much easier for me to have continued to beliee it true than to find at its most foundational level assumptions, presumption and speculatative interpretation .. nothing solid.

If you can produce something that is not assumption, presumption adn speculation regarding the foundations of dispensatoinalism, I am all ears. But after the very extensive investigation I did, I found there was nothing.

I am not afraid at all at having what I believe closely examined.

But it needs to be LOGICAL. the arguments need to be logical, and the evidence needs to be logically used and valid for its purpose. . . the evidence and arguments cannot be based on speculation, assumptions and presumptions.


Do you agree?

Who does then, another man or woman who is just as we are..?

Click to expand...

Are all men and woman equal in all things?

Are their experts in their field or are there not? Are you an expert in the field of biblical literature?

In the portion you refer to, it would certainly "be better" for a man to pluck out his eye or cut off his hand rather than be cast into hell fire.. certainly that's literal.

Click to expand...

Then we have an area of divergence here. . a significant one.

Remember, I said above that any arguments would need to be logical, and proof would need to be logically valid for its purpose. . .

We have to start here, at this most basic and fundamental level . . how we understand langauge and the words and phrases used by people 2000 years removed from us in a completely different culture in a completely different langauge.


I will give you this information and you can tell me if you think you can agree:

The middle eastern people use hyperbole . . a deliberate exaggeration in order to make a point . . it is a literary device . .a figure of speach.

Hyperbole cannot be taken or understood literally . . otherwise violence is done to this literary device, to the language itself, and a false and erroneous understanding results.

Hyperbole was common in ancient Judaism . .Jesus used hyperbole as He understood His hearers would understand and not take Him literally, but would instead get His real point which He wanted to emphasise as strongly as possible. That is the purpose of hyperbole.


Can we agree that Jesus was using hyperbole in this passage and was NOT speaking of literally cutting off one's hands or feet or plucking out one's eyes?

There are many things in scripture that are given as examples.. The Lord says that He is the bread of life although I know that He isn't a loaf of bread. He is said to be the true vine although I know that He is not a literal vine. He is said to be the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world although I know that He is not a Lamb.

Click to expand...

OK . . so, Jesus was speaking figuratively, symbolically, right?

Then, that would mean He wasn't speaking LITERALLY, right?


He is not LITEREALLY a loaf of bread, He is not LITERALLY a vine, He is not LITERALLY a lamb.

So, we have at least TWO CATAGORIES of words/speach in the scriptures . .

NOT NO catagories.


Yet, you were telling me earlier that to try to put words of the bible (or a particular book) into some type of catagory misses the whole point.


Yet we see that there are at least TWO catagories the words of scripture fall into . . Literal and Symbolic that you yourself admit to.


So the whole idea of no catagories, or catagories not being valid, really has no basis.


Obviously there are catagories, and we must pay attemtion to them, or we could go way off in left field believing that Jesus is really a literal lamb, or a literal vine, or a literal loaf of bread.

Understanding what catagories words of scripture fall into help us to avoid making such grevious errors.


Don't you agree?

I find it interesting that the catholic doctrine believes that they literally turn a piece of bread into the flesh and blood of Christ... although many remember Christ in His death every first day of the week and simply receive the elements of the bread and wine as a reminder of His body and of His blood that was shed.

Click to expand...

Of course that is a topic for a different thread. But it is an example of how one can take something that is intended to be literal as symbolic (or vica versa) by failing to understand the nature of what is being said, by failing to understand how the words used were and were not used in the ancient world . . . In this case, Jesus employs a word for "eat" that is only ever used literally never symbolically in ancient Greek. . . There were ther words he could have used that could be understood symbolically for "eat" in the Greek langauge, but not the one Jesus used. (In fact he did used one at first, because it was commonly used literally, but when He was not understood, He switched to the word that could only be used LITERALLY).

But that particular topic aside, understanding how langauge was used back at the time of Jesus is absolutely essential in understanding what was said, or not said. .. just reading an English translation 2000 years removed from the writers, people, culture, langauge and time is not enough.


Do you agree?




Peace

ETide said:

Dave,

If we look to the writings of men, then we'll find all sorts of things, beliefs, etc.

Click to expand...

when you talk about the writings of men, you are, of course meaning the understanding of those men set down in writing, right?

But what you are offering us is YOUR understanding set down in writing here in thsi thread. .

You are a man . . you are offering us the writings of man, your own.

Now, what makes what you are offerieng any better than what you are calling the writings of men?


Peace

take Irenaeus for example.. I can show you where he believes in the presence of Christ in the eucharist AND that he believed in a literal thousand year reign of Christ in terrestrial Jerusalem..

Click to expand...

Yet you cannot show Irenaes ever writing about:

Irenaeus' version of premillenialism was very different and ultimately rejected by the Church soon after .. it is important to keep in mind that the Church was under persecution so did not focus to heavily on eschatology, but when the persecutions finally ceased, they dealt with the problems in understanding.

In fact, the Apostle John is told to have left a bathhouse in anger refusng to be in the same space as a prominent chilaist so vehemnetly did he reject what you embrace . .and it is his words you are using to do so. . .

Are you aware of this? Why are you using the words of the Apostle John when it was well known in the Early Church that he rejected what you embrace?


Peace

thereselittleflower said:

when you talk about the writings of men, you are, of course meaning the understanding of those men set down in writing, right?

But what you are offering us is YOUR understanding set down in writing here in thsi thread. .

You are a man . . you are offering us the writings of man, your own.

Now, what makes what you are offerieng any better than what you are calling the writings of men?


Peace

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point, there's the words of men (such as myself, and in your case, a woman) and then there's the word of God.

thereselittleflower said:

Yet you cannot show Irenaes ever writing about:

1. a rebuilt earthly temple with animal sacrifices,
2. mortals surviving the 2nd Coming,
3. multiple resurrections of different groups of believers at different times,
4. Satan being bound by a literal chain after the 2nd Coming,
5. the Gog/Magog battle occuring a literal 1000 years after the 2nd Coming,
6. a continuation of the curse of Creation after the 2nd Coming,
7. mortals and immortals co-existing upon the Earth after the 2nd Coming,
8. Israel being promoted in a leadership role over the nations,
9. sin death and rebellion continuing upon the Earth after the 2nd Coming, etc...)....

Dave Taylor

​

Irenaeus' version of premillenialism was very different and ultimately rejected by the Church soon after .. it is important to keep in mind that the Church was under persecution so did not focus to heavily on eschatology, but when the persecutions finally ceased, they dealt with the problems in understanding.

In fact, the Apostle John is told to have left a bathhouse in anger refusng to be in the same space as a prominent chilaist so vehemnetly did he reject what you embrace . .and it is his words you are using to do so. . .

Are you aware of this? Why are you using the words of the Apostle John when it was well known in the Early Church that he rejected what you embrace?


Peace

Click to expand...

Again, this makes a good point.. it really doesn't mean a whole lot if Irenaeus says something or not, he is not God.

And again therese, you speak as if the RCC is 'the' church of God, when you speak of the church rejecting certain things.. but you know what.. they're men too.. fallible men.. I know that the catholics believe in apostolic succession and that they're the true church of God etc etc etc.. although that's not the church of God as scripture describes it.. although I'm sure that you believe otherwise..

ETide said:

Do you actually believe that the nations of this world are not deceived at this time.. ? ? Seriously.

Click to expand...

Etide,
I believe these scriptures seriously say 'Yes' the Gentiles/Nations (Greek: Ethnos) are no longer deceived by Satan.

(I'm not a Universalist, so the fact that the millions and millions of Gentiles who have not been deceived by Satan since the cross may only represent a minority portion of all humankind, they do represent the binding of Satan via the cross from their near complete blindness that had them groping in complete darkness prior to the cross).

Isaiah 42:5 "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house."

Isaiah 49:6 "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee. Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee"

Isaiah 60:1 "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see"

Isaiah 61:8 "I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed."

Matthew 4:15 "the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."

Matthew 12:18 "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. "

Luke 2:30 "For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles"

Acts 11:18 "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

Acts 13:47 "For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."

Acts 14:27 "And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles."

Romans 15:9 "And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again, Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust."

ETide said:

Again, this makes a good point.. it really doesn't mean a whole lot if Irenaeus says something or not, he is not God.

And again therese, you speak as if the RCC is 'the' church of God, when you speak of the church rejecting certain things.. but you know what.. they're men too.. fallible men.. I know that the catholics believe in apostolic succession and that they're the true church of God etc etc etc.. although that's not the church of God as scripture describes it.. although I'm sure that you believe otherwise..

Click to expand...

Etide,
2 things.

1) My post wsn't written to elevate writings of men. It was primarily only used to show that 'the Binding of Satan' as interpretted at the cross (which Amill does and Premill doesn't); was not created by Augustine, but was believed to be that way in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries prior to Augustine....

AND 2) that there were no opposing post-2nd Advent interpretation (like modern Premill interprets it) by the 1-3 century Christians.

Maybe they were all wrong....but they didn't teach what modern Premill teaches regarding the binding of Satan, and they show Augustine didn't invent this view either.

As was re-stated, perhaps many of the early christians had alot of teachings wrong, be it early RCC teachings or other fallicies. But when it comes to the attributes and characteristics of either Pretrib or modern Premillennialism; the early Christians, and fundamentally all Christians prior to the 19th century remain silent.

So it is really not so much 'what they say' and do we belive the writings of these men....but shall we put so much faith in the writings of 19th century men and their later followers who have popularized things that were silent and non-existant throughout the first 19 centuries of Christianity?

Sometimes silence is worth more than what is spoken as to determining truth.