The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[Rich R]

Your whole thesis is based on a misrepresentation of the ECFs. Yet, you refuse to remove the error you are propagating.

I found the ECFs. I've studied them to some degree, enough to get the gist. I just never heard them called ECFs.

What's with this constant insistence on your part that I remove my post? Have I asked you to remove what I obviously consider error? No! I allow you the freedom of airing your views regardless of how I feel about them.

Do you think: if you state a thing that makes it a fact? Well, that is not the way it works. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must approve."

It's a two way street. No? So prove to me the ECFs are the bastion of truth and all else is false. I don't really expect you to do that and that's fine. I'm not going to prove the veracity of historians either. It's up to each individual to choose their own source of truth.

 

[WPM]

I found the ECFs on staycatholic.com. Now I know what you mean.

Everybody that has ever lived has good points and bad points. When someone is writing about someone else they will either emphasize to some degree or another the good points or the bad points. It all depends on the writer's point of view.

So I can easily understand the Catholic church emphasizing the good points while minimizing or eliminating the bad points, hence your positive view of the early church fathers. I can appreciate that. The EFCs all certainly had good points. However they also had some bad points that the Catholic church may tend to disregard. Again, very understandable. Nonetheless, it is poor scholarship and leads to a bigoted conclusion.

However, in order to come to a logical decision on any controversial matter it is incumbent that one listen to both sides of the argument. Historians, Christian and secular alike, tell us things about the ECFs that the Catholics didn't. They don't necessarily go against the Catholic church. They all acknowledge the good points. They just give a more complete picture by including the dirty laundry along with the clean. They have no axe to grind. They look at ancient documents, read them for what they say, and report their findings.

Just because the Catholic church doesn't acknowledge what the vast majority of scholars say, does not make the scholars wrong. Everything I said in the OP is verifiable history, verifiable by source documents from the early centuries AD.

I am not here to defend the RCC. I do not accept them as bona-fide Christianity. They are apostate. However, I find modern-day Premil "historians" and "authorities" to be so ignorant, bias and deceptive in their analyze. The fact that RCC historians are more reliable is telling!

 

[WPM]

I found the ECFs. I've studied them to some degree, enough to get the gist. I just never heard them called ECFs.

What's with this constant insistence on your part that I remove my post? Have I asked you to remove what I obviously consider error? No! I allow you the freedom of airing your views regardless of how I feel about them.

It's a two way street. No? So prove to me the ECFs are the bastion of truth and all else is false. I don't really expect you to do that and that's fine. I'm not going to prove the veracity of historians either. It's up to each individual to choose their own source of truth.

You are deflecting now. I'm asking you: where did you get your evidence?

1. Where is your historic evidence that "There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus"?
2. Where is your historic evidence that "It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced"?
3. Where is your historic evidence that "It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method"?
4. Where is your historic evidence that Origen "was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria"?
5. Where is your historic evidence that "The avowed purpose of that institution (the School of Alexandria) was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures"?
6. Where is your historic evidence that "That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD)"?

This is a ficticious history. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must approve."

 

[Rich R]

I am not here to defend the RCC. I do not accept them as bona-fide Christianity. They are apostate. However, I find modern-day Premil "historians" and "authorities" to be so ignorant, bias and deceptive in their analyze. The fact that RCC historians are more reliable is telling!

OK. That's fine if you rely on RCC historians for history while ignoring all others, Christian and secular alike. Find me just one RCC historian that would say Origin was not one of the first to use the allegorical method to interpret scripture. Then I'll sit up and take notice, and we can fact check the rest of my assertions one by one.

BTW, I don't expect you to defend anything. I don't mean criticize anybody. I'm just reporting the facts of history. Nobody's better than anybody else.

 

[Rich R]

The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must approve."

Prove that!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Like I said to Rich earlier... there aren't actually any people who are 100% literal OR 100% allegorical. We all are degrees of both.

The main thing, I think, is not to VOID the literal meaning in order to assign an allegorical one. And vice versa - just because something is literal doesn't mean it can't also be part of a type/antitype, or that we can't learn from it by allegorizing it.

Now you are sounding just like a literalist! A literal hermeneutic recognizes that many passages can and do have personal applications.

Example JOnah rebelled and got swallowed by a big fish- applcation when we run from God eventually our sin swallows us and in the midst of our sin we repent and we are released from sin like Jonah was vomited out of the fish. that is an APPLICATION but not the INTERPRETATION.

 

[Rich R]

You are deflecting now. I'm asking you: where did you get your evidence?

1. Where is your historic evidence that "There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus"?
2. Where is your historic evidence that "It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced"?
3. Where is your historic evidence that "It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method"?
4. Where is your historic evidence that Origen "was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria"?
5. Where is your historic evidence that "The avowed purpose of that institution (the School of Alexandria) was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures"?
6. Where is your historic evidence that "That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD)"?

This is a ficticious history. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must approve."

Since you are the one arguing against those points, it ought to be you giving me reason that they are wrong.

Besides I have a feeling that I could quote numerous historians (I'd leave out any premil historians) and you'd still not believe.

Luke 16:31,

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.​

 

[Rich R]

Now you are sounding just like a literalist! A literal hermeneutic recognizes that many passages can and do have personal applications.

Example JOnah rebelled and got swallowed by a big fish- applcation when we run from God eventually our sin swallows us and in the midst of our sin we repent and we are released from sin like Jonah was vomited out of the fish. that is an APPLICATION but not the INTERPRETATION.

Good point. We must read read the account literally (considering figures of speech, etc) and from that literal reading we can learn the application(s). But when one begins to analogize Jonah without using accepted grammatical guidelines, one can say it means whatever strikes their fancy. Maybe it means we should all eat fish tonght?

 

[WPM]

OK. That's fine if you rely on RCC historians for history while ignoring all others, Christian and secular alike. Find me just one RCC historian that would say Origin was not one of the first to use the allegorical method to interpret scripture. Then I'll sit up and take notice, and we can fact check the rest of my assertions one by one.

BTW, I don't expect you to defend anything. I don't mean criticize anybody. I'm just reporting the facts of history. Nobody's better than anybody else.

No. You are telling deliberate lies about the ECFs of which you admit you have NO actual evidence to support your claims, and, yet, you refuse to remove it and apologize. This says a lot about you. Sorry. I will back up my ECF claims with hard quotes.

 

[RedFan]

Good point. We must read read the account literally (considering figures of speech, etc) and from that literal reading we can learn the application(s). But when one begins to analogize Jonah without using accepted grammatical guidelines, one can say it means whatever strikes their fancy. Maybe it means we should all eat fish tonght?

What do you mean by "read the account literally (considering figures of speech, etc.)"? Does that leave room for allegory, metaphoric or hyperbole, or are they excluded?

 

[Rich R]

No. You are telling deliberate lies about the ECFs of which you admit you have NO actual evidence to support your claims, and, yet, you refuse to remove it and apologize. This says a lot about you. Sorry. I will back up my ECF claims with hard quotes.

So the ECFs do say that Origin was one of the first to use the allegorical method? If you already knew that why are you asking me to prove it?

I admit I have no evidence that supports my claims? Could you quote me on that?

 

[Rich R]

What do you mean by "read the account literally (considering figures of speech, etc.)"? Does that leave room for allegory, metaphoric or hyperbole, or are they excluded?

Allegory, metaphors, hyperbole, and many other types of figures of speech are absolutely found in the scriptures.

The thing many don't understand about figures of speech is that they are used in as precise a manner as literal speech. It's true that some speakers/writers misuse them or mix them up with literal words, but I don't see God being guilty of that. Every word of God, the literal ones and the figurative ones alike, have been purified 7 times. We ought to read them as such. At least to the best of our ability. We all miss things from to time!

 

[WPM]

So the ECFs do say that Origin was one of the first to use the allegorical method? If you already knew that why are you asking me to prove it?

I admit I have no evidence that supports my claims? Could you quote me on that?

So, this thread and your thesis is dead. It is a deception. It is theological politicking. It is an illusion. Just like I suspected. Sad! Pride will not let you apologize when you have been caught on. Your claims are blatantly false.

 

[Rich R]

So, this thread and your thesis is dead. It is a deception. It is theological politicking. It is an illusion. Just like I suspected. Sad! Pride will not let you apologize when you have been caught on. Your claims are blatantly false.

Maybe block my posts? All you have to do is click on my image and then click on "ignore."

 

[WPM]

Maybe block my posts? All you have to do is click on my image and then click on "ignore."

Your error needs exposed/challenged. There are people watching on that are susceptible to this type of error. You have no basis for the Op in history or in facts. If you had it, you would present it.

 

[RedFan]

Allegory, metaphors, hyperbole, and many other types of figures of speech are absolutely found in the scriptures.

The thing many don't understand about figures of speech is that they are used in as precise a manner as literal speech. It's true that some speakers/writers misuse them or mix them up with literal words, but I don't see God being guilty of that. Every word of God, the literal ones and the figurative ones alike, have been purified 7 times. We ought to read them as such. At least to the best of our ability. We all miss things from to time!

Would you interpret “Asahel was as swift of foot as a wild gazelle” (2 Samuel 2:18) literally? Meaning, he was that fast a runner? Usain Bolt would have had no chance against him?

 

[Wick Stick]

OK. That's fine if you rely on RCC historians for history while ignoring all others...

The problem there is that for about 1400 years, there are no Christian historians that aren't Catholic. Your alternative is only Islamic historians, which doesn't seem better to me.

 

[Wick Stick]

Example Jonah rebelled and got swallowed by a big fish- application when we run from God eventually our sin swallows us and in the midst of our sin we repent and we are released from sin like Jonah was vomited out of the fish. that is an APPLICATION but not the INTERPRETATION.

Jonah's a great example. Question - did Jonah die? Because some of the language in the book, taken literally, indicates that he did. While other verses don't seem to.

 

[rwb]

Yeah, you're right. Historians don't know what they are talking about. I should just listen to WPM. I mean, what does Jeremiah or Paul know about God's plan? They're both deceived because they didn't read and believe the ECFs. They're nothing but a couple of cop outs! Seriously?

BTW, this idea of accusing someone of being a cop out is boring. I think it's nothing more than the stock answer when someone has nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Way overused. It means nothing.

Here's a pretty good site in case if you're interested.

Hall of Church History

www.romans45.org

 

[Rich R]

Would you interpret “Asahel was as swift of foot as a wild gazelle” (2 Samuel 2:18) literally? Meaning, he was that fast a runner? Usain Bolt would have had no chance against him?

Kind of an odd question, but here goes:

It's a simile, a figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in.

I think the message was the Asahel was a faster runner than the average guy, but certainly not as fast as a gazelle. Now, exactly God why would point that out, I don't know.

The rest of the story shows that Abner stopped pursuing Israel, that the fighting stopped. I also says Asahel was buried in his Father's (interestingly enough, not named in the scriptures), tomb in Bethlehem. I'm sure there is a lot there that I don't grasp. Maybe one of these days, but not today.