The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[Rich R]

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.

True. But there is no shortages of documents recently discovered (in the last 75 years of so) from the first few centuries AD from which modern historians can learn.

 

[Rich R]

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

Hall of Church History

www.romans45.org

That does look to be a pretty good website. Looks very extensive. I bookmarked it.

One thing about it though was that there is no way to search through the material. For example, there was no quick way to determine if Origin was one of the first to use the allegorical method to interpret the scriptures or not. I suppose I could read an entire article on Origin. I could spend a lot of time reading through the article only to discover that it said nothing about it at all. Why do that? There are much quicker ways to answer the question.

As I mentioned to WPM, it's pretty easy to find that Origin was in fact one of the first to use the allegorical method. It's also easy to find that Augustine was the first to advance the idea that the Roman church was the final authority as to the meaning of those allegories. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that said otherwise. It's like all historians report that George Washington was the first president of the US. It'd be nigh to impossible to find otherwise.

 

[WPM]

That does look to be a pretty good website. Looks very extensive. I bookmarked it.

One thing about it though was that there is no way to search through the material. For example, there was no quick way to determine if Origin was one of the first to use the allegorical method to interpret the scriptures or not. I suppose I could read an entire article on Origin. I could spend a lot of time reading through the article only to discover that it said nothing about it at all. Why do that? There are much quicker ways to answer the question.

As I mentioned to WPM, it's pretty easy to find that Origin was in fact one of the first to use the allegorical method. It's also easy to find that Augustine was the first to advance the idea that the Roman church was the final authority as to the meaning of those allegories. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that said otherwise. It's like all historians report that George Washington was the first president of the US. It'd be nigh to impossible to find otherwise.

Bro, you started a thread making bold affirmative statements against Amil making claims about the ECFs that you have not been able to support or are prepared to withdraw. These were the basis of your whole thesis. Your whole argument is therefore moot.

 

[Rich R]

Bro, you started a thread making bold affirmative statements against Amil making claims about the ECFs that you have not been able to support or are prepared to withdraw. These were the basis of your whole thesis. Your whole argument is therefore moot.

I've heard of internet trolls but never really knew what they are. I just now looked it up. Here's what I found on howtogeek.com:

"An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda."​

 

[The Light]

No, neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Peter were eisegetes.

Eisegesis is reading one's own preconceived ideas into the scriptures. Where do you see Peter, Mathew or Peter reading their own ideas into the scriptures? They wrote what God told them to write. We ought to read the scriptures in the say way, just taking them for what they say without interjecting our own preconceived ideas.

Hi Brother,

I think you are over simplifying things. You just want to take things literal. How can you possibly understand scripture taking this approach.

Look at the following verse.

John 11
35 Jesus wept.

If you take this verse literally you are going to think it means Jesus cried. That's not what the verse is saying. We need to perform proper exegesis before we can understand this scripture. The verse should be interpreted this way:

Jesus is God (John 1). Tears represent falling rain. So John 11:35 means it that it was raining.

We have further proof because rain comes from clouds. Clouds are far away. So Jesus wept means it is a "far cry" from crying.

There you have it. If you need help with any other verses you don't understand, I will be happy to lend my expertise.

 

[Keraz]

Regarding the method of interpreting Prophecy by using allegory: This should not be done if there is any way for that Bible Prophecy to be literally fulfilled.
For example; Isaiah 66:15-16 says: The Lord will come in fire and many will be slain by Him. This dramatic event can and will happen, it also has many other supporting verses.

Regarding the doctrines espoused by the Early Church Fathers, they fairly well have the truth of Salvation and right living. But to go by what they wrote about Bible Prophecy for the end times, is a mistake, because it was impossible them to know the truths; sealed up until the time of the end. Daniel 12:4 & 9

 

[Rich R]

Bro, you started a thread making bold affirmative statements against Amil making claims about the ECFs that you have not been able to support or are prepared to withdraw. These were the basis of your whole thesis. Your whole argument is therefore moot.

I'll make you a deal. Find me just one citation that says that Origin was not one of the first to use the allegorical method of interpreting scripture and I'll remove the OP. Fell free to use the ECFs.

 

[rwb]

That does look to be a pretty good website. Looks very extensive. I bookmarked it.

One thing about it though was that there is no way to search through the material. For example, there was no quick way to determine if Origin was one of the first to use the allegorical method to interpret the scriptures or not. I suppose I could read an entire article on Origin. I could spend a lot of time reading through the article only to discover that it said nothing about it at all. Why do that? There are much quicker ways to answer the question.

As I mentioned to WPM, it's pretty easy to find that Origin was in fact one of the first to use the allegorical method. It's also easy to find that Augustine was the first to advance the idea that the Roman church was the final authority as to the meaning of those allegories. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that said otherwise. It's like all historians report that George Washington was the first president of the US. It'd be nigh to impossible to find otherwise.

Yes, it is an extensive study! Far easier to simply repeat what you have learned, rather been taught from others, who themselves probably also found it too exhausting to study for themselves, so the error continues to be perpetuated with only few who take the time to learn from the writings of Origin himself and they have learned to cherry pick only that which serves to further their unbiblical doctrines.

 

[WPM]

I'll make you a deal. Find me just one citation that says that Origin was not one of the first to use the allegorical method of interpreting scripture and I'll remove the OP. Fell free to use the ECFs.

You are trying to move the goal posts now and water down what you said. This is what you said:

"There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical."

I can easily refute this when I get home.

Will you then remove the lies?

 

[Rich R]

Hi Brother,

I think you are over simplifying things. You just want to take things literal. How can you possibly understand scripture taking this approach.

Look at the following verse.

John 11
35 Jesus wept.

If you take this verse literally you are going to think it means Jesus cried. That's not what the verse is saying. We need to perform proper exegesis before we can understand this scripture. The verse should be interpreted this way:

Jesus is God (John 1). Tears represent falling rain. So John 11:35 means it that it was raining.

We have further proof because rain comes from clouds. Clouds are far away. So Jesus wept means it is a "far cry" from crying.

There you have it. If you need help with any other verses you don't understand, I will be happy to lend my expertise.

Hmmmm...interesting take there, but I still take the radical approach of saying that John meant to say Jesus wept.

 

[Rich R]

Yes, it is an extensive study! Far easier to simply repeat what you have learned, rather been taught from others, who themselves probably also found it too exhausting to study for themselves, so the error continues to be perpetuated with only few who take the time to learn from the writings of Origin himself and they have learned to cherry pick only that which serves to further their unbiblical doctrines.

So you found something that says Origin wasn't one of the first to employ the allegorical method? Where is it? I'll have a look.

And how pray tell do you know I haven't read Origin's works? I actually have. In his "Dialogue with Tyrpho" it is glaringly obvious that he held a low opinion of the Jews, which ultimately paved the way for replacement theology, making the church the "spiritual Israel." Never mind there is no such phraseology in the Bible itself.

 

[Rich R]

You are trying to move the goal posts now and water down what you said. This is what you said:

"There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical."

I can easily refute this when I get home.

Will you then remove the lies?

I'll eagerly await your return home. And, yes, if you can provide any credible evidence that anything I said is a glaring error, the OP is gonzo!

 

[Rich R]

Hi Brother,

I think you are over simplifying things. You just want to take things literal. How can you possibly understand scripture taking this approach.

Look at the following verse.

John 11
35 Jesus wept.

If you take this verse literally you are going to think it means Jesus cried. That's not what the verse is saying. We need to perform proper exegesis before we can understand this scripture. The verse should be interpreted this way:

Jesus is God (John 1). Tears represent falling rain. So John 11:35 means it that it was raining.

We have further proof because rain comes from clouds. Clouds are far away. So Jesus wept means it is a "far cry" from crying.

There you have it. If you need help with any other verses you don't understand, I will be happy to lend my expertise.

Isa 55:10a,

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven...​

​

Rain does not come from clouds as you said. "Jesus wept" means that God sent manna from heaven.

 

[The Light]

Hmmmm...interesting take there, but I still take the radical approach of saying that John meant to say Jesus wept.

LOL. Me too.

I just caught up in the moment because I am told that I never provide any exegesis. I always say.... why would I need to, as the scripture speaks for itself.

I have enjoyed reading your commonsense posts.

 

[WPM]

I've heard of internet trolls but never really knew what they are. I just now looked it up. Here's what I found on howtogeek.com:

"An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda."​

Do you know what "passive aggressive" is?

Some people are uncomfortable with accountability.

 

[Rich R]

Do you know what "passive aggressive" is?

Yes. Sometimes it can make a point.

Some people are uncomfortable with accountability.

Now there's a great example of passive aggressive. And, although I disagree with it, you did make your point.

 

[Rich R]

LOL. Me too.

I just caught up in the moment because I am told that I never provide any exegesis. I always say.... why would I need to, as the scripture speaks for itself.

I have enjoyed reading your commonsense posts.

I kind of thought you might be kidding around. :)

 

[covenantee]

So you found something that says Origin wasn't one of the first to employ the allegorical method? Where is it? I'll have a look.

And how pray tell do you know I haven't read Origin's works? I actually have. In his "Dialogue with Tyrpho" it is glaringly obvious that he held a low opinion of the Jews, which ultimately paved the way for replacement theology, making the church the "spiritual Israel." Never mind there is no such phraseology in the Bible itself.

The name is Origen. So if you've been reading Origin, then you haven't been reading Origen.

But I think that WPM and rwb misspelled it as well.

And the dialogue was between Justin Martyr and Trypho, not Origin and Tyrpho.

You're welcome.

Replacement theology does not replace Israel's physical DNA.

Replacement theology does not replace Christ's invitation to Israel to receive Him.

Replacement theology does not replace Israel's opportunity to receive Christ.

So what does replacement theology replace?

 

[WPM]

The name is Origen. So if you've been reading Origin, then you haven't been reading Origen.

And the dialogue was between Justin Martyr and Trypho, not Origin and Tyrpho.

You're welcome.

Replacement theology does not replace Israel's physical DNA.

Replacement theology does not replace Christ's invitation to Israel to receive Him.

Replacement theology does not replace Israel's opportunity to receive Christ.

So what does replacement theology replace?

Everything he has written reveals his total ignorance of the subject, yet he uses this as his foundation to debunk Amil. He has only succeeded in debunking his own thesis.

 

[covenantee]

Everything he has written reveals his total ignorance of the subject, yet he uses this as his foundation to debunk Amil. He has only succeeded in debunking his own thesis.

"Replacement theology" is certainly nonsense.