The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Ronald Nolette]

Why would you even ask? The Word of God is our sole grounds of spiritual truth. This topic just shows the dubious origins of modern Premil.

I ask because you seem obsessed with teh ECF over the Word of God. I cannot answer why eschatology was a very minor subject for the ECF's. Maybe because with Gentiles flooding into the Church they had more important doctrines to teach the heathen who had little to no understanding of the truth.

 

[WPM]

I ask because you seem obsessed with teh ECF over the Word of God. I cannot answer why eschatology was a very minor subject for the ECF's. Maybe because with Gentiles flooding into the Church they had more important doctrines to teach the heathen who had little to no understanding of the truth.

It is a subject I am studying and writing on, but far from my focus. My overwhelming focus as a Christian is the Word of God. That is where i find multiple support for Amil.

 

[WPM]

Thank you, but I already know well that the Church Fathers, including the Chiliasts, took a dim view of the Jews and of their religion. This was in keeping with both Jesus and Paul, who despite their belief in Israel's restoration, firmly denounced the current state of affairs among the Jews.

As I said previously, this is why, I believe, that Amil took over dominion of Christian eschatology in later centuries. The initial denial of the Jews' place in future prophecy led to a change in view about the necessity of a future age in which Israel can be restored. We agree on this much.

Here we ago again! You keep presenting these lies whilst ducking around these requests for biblical evidence.

1. When did Jesus teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?
2. When did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

You make so many sweeping statements without being able to back it up with hard evidence. That applies to both Scripture and history.

 

[WPM]

You need not do so! I've repeatedly admitted that the Early Church, including Chiliasts, viewed with disdain the Jews and their religion, just as Jesus and Paul did. They saw the Church as a kind of "Israel," and essentially replaced the Law with its spiritual fulfillment, the New Covenant. All of this has some legitimacy, as I've said myself.

However, the part about the Church *replacing* Israel, or being the "true Israel," I do not agree with. And that's why the literal account of the Millennium was eventually thrown out by the Amils, out of unbelief in the restoration of Israel and out of unbelief in the need for a Kingdom in which that can happen.

The Chiliasts believed in a literal Kingdom Age of a thousand years simply because it was written as such in the book of Revelation, ch. 20, and were told not to tamper with these words. Regardless of their disbelief in the literal restoration of national Israel they chose to believe in John's account of the Revelation.



You need not quote them. I've commented on this repeatedly, and you know my view. You are just taking opportunity to show that you know the Church Fathers and their quotations on matters that border on anti-Semitism. That's where Luther got his own kind of anti-Semitism.

I don't really wish to call this "Anti-Semitism," but the unnecessary infatuation with "beating the dead horse" appears to give it a valid argument for the Jews. You won't be able to explain to a Jew why this is not "Anti-Semitic!" And I don't wish to extend it too much in this way.

Commodianus
Africa
(wrote between AD 251 and 258)

The Instructor
On Christian Discipline
XXXVII. The Fanatics Who Judaize.

What! Are you half a Jew? will you be half profane? Whence you shall not when dead escape the judgment of Christ. You yourself blindly wander, and foolishly go in among the blind. And thus the blind leads the blind into the ditch. You go whither you know not, and thence ignorantly withdraw. Let them who are learning go to the learned, and let the learned depart. But you go to those from whom you can learn nothing. You go forth before the doors, and thence also you go to the idols.​

XXXVIII – To the Jews

Evil always, and recalcitrant, with a stiff neck ye wish not that ye should be overcome; thus ye will be heirs. Isaiah said that ye were of hardened heart. Ye look upon the law which Moses in wrath dashed to pieces; and the same Lord gave to him a second law. In that he placed his hope; but ye, half healed, reject it, and therefore ye shall not be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.​

XL – Again to the Same

There is not an unbelieving people such as yours. O evil men! in so many places, and so often rebuked by the law of those who cry aloud. And the lofty One despises your Sabbaths, and altogether rejects your universal monthly feasts according to law, that ye should not make to Him the commanded sacrifices; who told you to throw a stone for your offence. If any should not believe that He had perished by an unjust death, and that those who were beloved were saved by other laws, thence that life was suspended on the tree, and believe not on Him. God Himself is the life; He Himself was suspended for us. But ye with indurated heart insult Him.”​

 

[Randy Kluth]

You seem to think, if you fail to produce any evidence but merely keep denying the overwhelming evidential facts it will somehow become a reality. Well, no! That's not how it works. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." You have not proved anything on this thread but your total ignorance of the subject, your lack of objectivity and your ongoing frustration at the historic facts. That is because you have nothing but your own opinions, which have proved, time after time, to be ill-researched, bias and wrong.

I have proved in great detail how the founding fathers of your eschatology were heretics. I have not said or implied you are a heretic. I do not believe that. Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I have said.

Anybody can read what you said, brother. Anybody can see the implications of what you're suggesting, that I get my view from the original Premil "heretics." As for proving what I claim, it is first of all in Rev 20, which you twist to mean something allegorized, which we were specifically forbidden to do.

I appreciate all the work you've done to bolster your opinions. But sadly, you miss the forest for the trees. Everywhere one looks, the Chiliasts still believed Premil. Your claim they are actually "closet Amils" is laughable.

You waste tons of time proving things that aren't even relevant. I've covered this is my other responses to your posts, in connection with spiritualizing Judaism.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is obvious that you realize you have zero support from the ECFs right up until AD 240. Your failure to present one single quote to support all the main tenets of Premil apart from one (a future thousand years, albeit Chiliasts believed it will be a perfect age, unlike your rerun of our corrupt age) is damning for your beliefs.

You have a false grid through which you view everything, based on a failed thesis. You separate out certain beliefs you think belong only to Modern Premils, rendering Chiliasm a form of Amillennialism. As I've said repeatedly, this is laughable.

Not only is Chiliasm and Modern Premil pretty much the same with respect to belief in a literal Millennium, but views on peripheral matters such as the status of Israel and the mortality of the Millennial population are unimportant. Your thesis is based upon making these peripheral items of such great importance that ancient Chiliasm virtually becomes Amil! ;)

I will continue to present the avoided questions which expose your faulty claims:

Don't waste your breath. I've answered this as many times as you've posted them. The Chiliastic and the Premil world views both something ruled over and something gloriously blessed in the Millennial Period. They both agree that Satan and his forces are ruled over during the Millennium, whoever they may include. And they both agree that the glorious Church has been glorified and no longer marries, suffers, or dies.

So much for your corrupt thinking that Premil believes in an "evil" Millennial world.

 

[WPM]

Anybody can read what you said, brother. Anybody can see the implications of what you're suggesting, that I get my view from the original Premil "heretics." As for proving what I claim, it is first of all in Rev 20, which you twist to mean something allegorized, which we were specifically forbidden to do.

I appreciate all the work you've done to bolster your opinions. But sadly, you miss the forest for the trees. Everywhere one looks, the Chiliasts still believed Premil. Your claim they are actually "closet Amils" is laughable.

You waste tons of time proving things that aren't even relevant. I've covered this is my other responses to your posts, in connection with spiritualizing Judaism.

It is obvious that you realize you have zero support from the ECFs right up until AD 240. Your failure to present one single quote to support all the main tenets of Premil apart from one (a future thousand years, albeit Chiliasts believed it will be a perfect age, unlike your rerun of our corrupt age) is damning for your beliefs. I will continue to present the avoided questions which expose your faulty claims:

1. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described sin existing on a future millennial earth?
2. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described corruption existing on a future millennial earth?
3. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the wicked existing on a future millennial earth?
4. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described mortals existing on a future millennial earth?
5. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described decay existing on a future millennial earth?
6. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described the curse existing on a future millennial earth?
7. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described Satan existing on a future earth?
8. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium which involved the elevation of natural Israel above all other ethnic groups as Premil does?
9. Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving a renewal of the Jewish sacrifice system as Premil does?
10.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that described an alleged future millennium involving carnal pleasure like procreating in the age to come as Premil does?
11.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the binding of Satan for 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
12.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming as Premil does?
13.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that advocated the revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as Premil does?
14.Please quote any ECF in the first 210 years after the cross that taught that Jesus would be reigning over His enemies for 1,000 years upon David’s throne?

 

[WPM]

You have a false grid through which you view everything, based on a failed thesis. You separate out certain beliefs you think belong only to Modern Premils, rendering Chiliasm a form of Amillennialism. As I've said repeatedly, this is laughable.

Not only is Chiliasm and Modern Premil pretty much the same with respect to belief in a literal Millennium, but views on peripheral matters such as the status of Israel and the mortality of the Millennial population are unimportant. Your thesis is based upon making these peripheral items of such great importance that ancient Chiliasm virtually becomes Amil! ;)



Don't waste your breath. I've answered this as many times as you've posted them. The Chiliastic and the Premil world views both something ruled over and something gloriously blessed in the Millennial Period. They both agree that Satan and his forces are ruled over during the Millennium, whoever they may include. And they both agree that the glorious Church has been glorified and no longer marries, suffers, or dies.

So much for your corrupt thinking that Premil believes in an "evil" Millennial world.

How about telling the truth? If this is so: identify each post that you answered these. I will not hold my breath. The objective observer will see that you are lying again. The reason is: early Chiliasm was a completely different animal to modern Premil. It was more akin to Amil on most of its view of the character of the age to come. The burden of proof is with you. So far, you are yet to submit any evidence to support your wild claims.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here we ago again! You keep presenting these lies whilst ducking around these requests for biblical evidence.

You continue to ask for evidence that has already been provided. It is your tactic to make it appear to others that I've not delivered any evidence at all, which is not true.

1. When did Jesus teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

I just gave it to you brother, in Acts 1, where Jesus confirmed that Israel will be restored, nationally, with the caveat that the Church needs to focus on its own mission instead of on speculating about future events.

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus said he will gather his people, Israel, together. This address was given specifically to Jews, since this address happened *before* the cross. Since Jesus himself is gathering them, it obviously infers that Israel will become a Christian nation.

In claiming, in the book of Revelation, that he is coming back with his glorified saints, the assumption is that the populations on earth will be defeated and ruled over. And Jesus said in Rev 20 that it will be for a thousand years, which you deny against the advice of Jesus himself not to mess with the words.

2. When did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

You make so many sweeping statements without being able to back it up with hard evidence. That applies to both Scripture and history.

As I just today provided for you, Paul taught in Rom 11 that Israel--not the "replaced Israel, the International Church," but the Israel that was *restored from exile*--that nation will suffer punishment, exile, and large-scale destruction. But a remnant will survive, embrace Christ at his Coming, and make the nation into a new Christian nation.

I know your MO. You will just continue to say that I "have nothing." ;) The simple reality is that you re-interpret Acts 1.6-7 and Rom 11 to mean something else. That's called a "difference of opinion."

But you can't accept that people have differences. And so you've made it your occupation to drill Amil into Christians until you either drive them away or make them your disciples. What a waste of Christian ministry! We should leave differences up to God and to the Holy Spirit.

Phil 3.15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How about telling the truth? If this is so: identify each post that you answered these. I will not hold my breath. The objective observer will see that you are lying again. The reason is: early Chiliasm was a completely different animal to modern Premil. It was more akin to Amil on most of its view of the character of the age to come. The burden of proof is with you. So far, you are yet to submit any evidence to support your wild claims.

I don't have to prove that Chiliasm and Premil both believed in a literal Millennium. Peripheral facts, as I said, were peripheral and were *not* Amil. You have not proven ancient Chiliasts derived their Premil beliefs from ancient Premil heretics, instead of from the Apostle John and the book of Revelation.

Your thesis is what hasn't been proven. I already know that ancient Chiliasts and Premil have more than the Millennium in common. They also believe Satan would be subdued at the 2nd Coming, as I proved from my reference to IREANAEUS. I'm not going to keep providing post references when you simply disagree with them and dismiss them, and then ask for them again!

 

[WPM]

You continue to ask for evidence that has already been provided. It is your tactic to make it appear to others that I've not delivered any evidence at all, which is not true.



I just gave it to you brother, in Acts 1, where Jesus confirmed that Israel will be restored, nationally, with the caveat that the Church needs to focus on its own mission instead of on speculating about future events.

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus said he will gather his people, Israel, together. This address was given specifically to Jews, since this address happened *before* the cross. Since Jesus himself is gathering them, it obviously infers that Israel will become a Christian nation.

In claiming, in the book of Revelation, that he is coming back with his glorified saints, the assumption is that the populations on earth will be defeated and ruled over. And Jesus said in Rev 20 that it will be for a thousand years, which you deny against the advice of Jesus himself not to mess with the words.

Stop ducking the issue. There is nothing here to support your claims. Quote the text, instead of imposing your error upon it. Where in Acts 1 did Jesus teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

As I just today provided for you, Paul taught in Rom 11 that Israel--not the "replaced Israel, the International Church," but the Israel that was *restored from exile*--that nation will suffer punishment, exile, and large-scale destruction. But a remnant will survive, embrace Christ at his Coming, and make the nation into a new Christian nation.

I know your MO. You will just continue to say that I "have nothing." ;) The simple reality is that you re-interpret Acts 1.6-7 and Rom 11 to mean something else. That's called a "difference of opinion."

But you can't accept that people have differences. And so you've made it your occupation to drill Amil into Christians until you either drive them away or make them your disciples. What a waste of Christian ministry! We should leave differences up to God and to the Holy Spirit.

Phil 3.15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

You know you have nothing. This is ridiculous. Where in Rom 11 did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

It is time for you to produce. You have provided nothing so far!!! Basically, cough up or shut up!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Commodianus
Africa
(wrote between AD 251 and 258)

As I said, rejection of the Jew came early and hard. When Amils figured that there was then no need for a Messianic Kingdom, replete with Jewish restoration, they began to attack the Jews, perhaps, with even more fury.

I don't agree with it, whether among the Chiliasts or among the Amils. And I'm not surprised you've picked up their malicious style, since you spend so much time with it. Luther did the same thing and ended up writing "Against the Jews and their Lies."

 

[WPM]

I don't have to prove that Chiliasm and Premil both believed in a literal Millennium. Peripheral facts, as I said, were peripheral and were *not* Amil. You have not proven ancient Chiliasts derived their Premil beliefs from ancient Premil heretics, instead of from the Apostle John and the book of Revelation.

Your thesis is what hasn't been proven. I already know that ancient Chiliasts and Premil have more than the Millennium in common. They also believe Satan would be subdued at the 2nd Coming, as I proved from my reference to IREANAEUS. I'm not going to keep providing post references when you simply disagree with them and dismiss them, and then ask for them again!

Check mate!

 

[WPM]

As I said, rejection of the Jew came early and hard. When Amils figured that there was then no need for a Messianic Kingdom, replete with Jewish restoration, they began to attack the Jews, perhaps, with even more fury.

I don't agree with it, whether among the Chiliasts or among the Amils. And I'm not surprised you've picked up their malicious style, since you spend so much time with it. Luther did the same thing and ended up writing "Against the Jews and their Lies."

This is the final death throes of your argument. You have nothing and you know. If you had something you would present it. Your online teachers and mentors have misled you. They have left you holding the baby. You have finally admitted what has been obvious since the start of this thread: you have absolutely nothing to support your bias unobjective Premil claims apart from your opinion.

 

[Randy Kluth]

These movements towards the Amil position by you are obviously welcomed. However, it seems like you will change whatever view you possess in order to agree with Chiliasm, which, whilst encouraging, demonstrates how fluid and changeable your views are. Honest end-time observers will know that the above teaching cuts across modern-day Premil and corresponds with consistent Amil over the years. At least this debate is pushing you in the correct direction. You are now defending and espousing views that 99% of Premils would repudiate.

You are the one a few posts back was rubbishing the allegorizing of Israel, the spiritualization of the old covenant promises, including the land promises, yet ancient Chiliasts articulated this in a very clear way and explicit manner. Notwithstanding, these major movements towards Amil are obviously welcomed.

I have no idea why you think I'm changing my views towards your position. What a joke! All Christians believe in the New Covenant, and believe, as such, that it fulfilled the OT "shadows" of the Law. This doesn't mean all Christians reject the Jewish Hope, to be fulfilled at the Return of Christ.

This just shows how you're completely unable to follow my arguments, my opinions, rendering your judgment of them of questionable value. Chiliasts were not a different breed of Millennialist, different from Modern Premils, just because they focused away from Israel and spiritualized the Law of Moses!

Dispensationalists are only one kind of Modern Premillennialist, as I've repeatedly told you. I do not personally accept Dispensationalism, and its excessive focus on Israel as an elite nation during the Millennium.

But I do accept the restoration of Israel as one of many Christian nations in the Millennial era. Believing in the New Covenant, as applied to the International Church, does not prevent me from believing in a literal Millennium and a literal restoration of a real Israeli nation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Check mate!

Thank you--I didn't realize you'd concede so easily! :)

 

[Randy Kluth]

Stop ducking the issue. There is nothing here to support your claims. Quote the text, instead of imposing your error upon it. Where in Acts 1 did Jesus teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?



You know you have nothing. This is ridiculous. Where in Rom 11 did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

It is time for you to produce. You have provided nothing so far!!! Basically, cough up or shut up!

#647 Now it's time for you to settle down and take your meds.

 

[WPM]

#647 Now it's time for you to settle down and take your meds.

Not true! There is nothing here, and nothing there. You know it! The reader knows it! There has been nothing on this thread. This is your form: make the big claims, but fail to carry through with the hard evidence. This only serves to confirm the Op. For that I am grateful. That is why I continue. Your position is a shambles; it is falling apart at every turn.

Here is what you said in #647. Where are the answers to my questions?

That shares a sentiment with antiSemitism, to claim that because something is from Judaism, its current state of apostasy renders all of its teachings illegitimate. Jesus, however, said the opposite.

Matt 23.Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

So you reject the Prophets' presentation of what I call "the Jewish Hope" simply because Judaism taught it? No wonder you're Amil--Amil dismissed all hope that God's promise to Abraham, concerning Israel, would finally be fulfilled, resulting in Israel's ultimate restoration as a nation. What Amil basically did was exchange the "Jewish Hope" for the Hope of a newly-defined "Israel," the International Church.

Acts 1.6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Clearly, Jesus indicated that *at the proper time* Israel would be restored as a godly kingdom. But you join Amil teaching which reverses Jesus' teaching, and is based on unbelief in the promises of God.

Rom 11.1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!...
26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."



It doesn't matter where Papias got his statement from, even though we likely know it was from Jewish sources. The point is, it was based on the "Jewish Hope" of a Kingdom in which Israel would never again be destroyed. That certainly didn't apply to the Church!

According to the Prophets, the Messianic Age was to be one of great blessing. Focusing on what Papias is quoting is a complete distraction from this. The plain fact is that you reject Jewish Prophecy of Israel's final restoration.

Amos 9.8 “Surely the eyes of the Sovereign Lord
are on the sinful kingdom.
I will destroy it
from the face of the earth.
Yet I will not totally destroy
the descendants of Jacob,”
declares the Lord...
13 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills,
14 and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.
“They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,”
says the Lord your God.

The Church was not scattered across the face of the earth--Israel was! And it is Israel, the physical nation, that will be restored, after it has suffered much destruction and a long exile. Then Israel will enter into a period of great blessing. If Jewish sources indicated this, it was likely based on prophecies like this, which clearly is biblical!



Eusebius wished, as an Amil, to discount the message of Premil.



Quoting extra-biblical material from Jewish Literature can be valid or invalid, depending on whether the material subscribes to biblical truth. In this case, the Jewish Hope is true and biblical. It is based on the Abrahamic Covenant which obviously is biblical and true.



This is purely an argument from silence, which has no merit whatsoever. We know the glorified Church will rule on earth during the Millennium.. But rule over who? I should think Papias viewed the rule of the Church as secondary to the fact they rule at all? Focusing on mortals during the Millennium hardly has value in comparison to what Papias would hope the current Church wishes to prepare for?

There was likely little wish to speculate on the details of the Millennium, but instead to focus on the hope of glory for the Church, as the Bible itself focuses on. Jesus said that future speculation must take 2nd place to present ministry. Is it any wonder the early Chliasts didn't write books like "Left Behind?" ;)

Denouncing Papias' character and questioning his material is purely a distraction. And it isn't really even very Christian. You may question these things, but to do that to delegitimize his contributions in Christian history is not very respectable. The early Amils wished to do this, and I don't think that was very "Christian" either. They had a right to their opinion, but no right whatsoever to try to tarnish someone's reputation simply because they disagreed with his eschatology!

But you've picked up on this yourself. This is your entire style, to try to diminish others who have a different eschatology than you, insulting them and claiming they are heretical. You're disgusting.

1. Where in Acts 1 did Jesus teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?
2. Where in Rom 11 did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

 

[WPM]

That shares a sentiment with antiSemitism, to claim that because something is from Judaism, its current state of apostasy renders all of its teachings illegitimate. Jesus, however, said the opposite.

Matt 23.Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

So you reject the Prophets' presentation of what I call "the Jewish Hope" simply because Judaism taught it? No wonder you're Amil--Amil dismissed all hope that God's promise to Abraham, concerning Israel, would finally be fulfilled, resulting in Israel's ultimate restoration as a nation. What Amil basically did was exchange the "Jewish Hope" for the Hope of a newly-defined "Israel," the International Church.

Acts 1.6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Clearly, Jesus indicated that *at the proper time* Israel would be restored as a godly kingdom. But you join Amil teaching which reverses Jesus' teaching, and is based on unbelief in the promises of God.

The two verses that go before Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) support the idea of a spiritual kingdom. The two verses that follow Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) show the Lord giving a spiritual response to their question.

Before the question came Christ was exhorting the disciples on the need for patience as they awaited the empowerment of the Holy Ghost to take the Gospel out to “the whosoever.” Everything about the context is spiritual. The Lord was stating “that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:4-5).

Surely an unbiased look at these introductory comments would give us insight into what the Lord was teaching and what actually provoked the question that followed it. Undoubtedly the Lord was giving spiritual instruction about a spiritual kingdom that would shortly come with great power and fire? This is not territorial language.

What is “the Promise of the Father” here? Is it a material physical kingdom or is it a spiritual heavenly kingdom? Is it a millennial kingdom similar to this evil age, filled with death and rebellion, or was He speaking of the power of the Holy Ghost that would fall upon the disciples to empower them to bring the good news of Christ to all nations – starting in Jerusalem?

Evidently, Christ was referring to the day of Pentecost where the Church received its Holy Ghost baptism of fire. The whole discourse here is spiritual and revolved around the development of this spiritual kingdom subsequent to Christ’s ascension. Jesus confirms this again in Luke

24:46-49: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power (or dunamis) from on high.”

The promise of the Father was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which was a power from on high that endued them for service.

Jesus had previously said to the disciples in Mark 9:1: “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power (or dunamis).”

Christ was speaking of Pentecost. He said the disciples would not die until they had “seen the kingdom come with power” – referring here the Church’s baptism of fire to win a lost world. It didn’t mean they would die when that happened.

The disciples then interjected with a question: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

Jesus reply to the disciples is telling. He responded: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power (or dunamis), after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8)

If the disciples did have some glorious future natural earthly hope of a Jewish kingdom containing all the old covenant structures, rights and customs then Jesus wasn’t buying into it. In fact, He totally rebuked such a concept by His spiritual response. If their hope was spiritual then He ably explained the development of that spiritual kingdom – from the small nation of Israel to the Gentile nations. He was outlining the great commission and showing them their evangelistic mission field.

Regardless of their thinking, one thing is certain, Christ definitely (and unambiguously) outlines a spiritual response. Christ’s measured response to the disciples’ query supports the notion of a spiritual kingdom in this age; proving it to be in perfect accord with, and a continuation of, His teaching in relation to the kingdom of God (the subject He was undoubtedly advancing prior to the disciples’ enquiry). The nature of Christ’s reply shows us the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God in our current age.

Christ did in no way here ignore or dismiss the disciples’ query about natural Israel, as some would have us believe, rather the contrary, He directly addressed it in His response. In doing so, He reiterated His earlier teaching on the impending spiritual empowerment that would come upon the kingdom, just prior to the disciples’ interjection; only now He geographically confirmed that the spread of that message would embrace the actual nation of Israel (the locations of “Jerusalem,” “Judaea” and “Samaria” being identified). Nonetheless, in His response, He went further, widening out the disciples limited vision, which was still very localised, to encompass “the uttermost part of the earth.”

Christ’s response was that His kingdom was spiritual and not territorial. The focus was not going to be limited to Israel, but would expand to all nations. The disciples would thus, after a short season of tarrying in Jerusalem and an indispensable empowerment from on high, be living “witnesses” of the kingdom of God not only in their own natural land as they had wondered but throughout all the world. This is indeed what happened! This indeed is what is happening right now. This is definitely not talking about some imaginary age sandwiched in-between the second coming of Christ and the new heavens and new earth.

 

[WPM]

Rom 11.1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!...
26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."

Where in Rom 11 did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

It is time for you to produce. You have provided nothing so far!!! Basically, cough up or shut up!