The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[covenantee]

Do you know where "replacement theology'" originated???

If you're referring to it describing one replacing two, I see it originating here:

Ephesians 2
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

 

[David in NJ]

If you're referring to it describing one replacing two, I see it originating here:

Ephesians 2
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Blessings to @covenantee

i like that = Eph ch2

Let's get RIGHT UP to it now = BEFORE Paul wrote that, Somebody gave the 'verdict' and the Authorization in one sentence!!!

 

[Rich R]

Your quotes are very slanted and designed to discredit Origen. They are not objective.

History is history. If it discredits someone, so be it.

Read the first link as it is commending of Origen.

I know. That's why I included it. Nonetheless it does say, "His purpose was to recover Plato for Platonism, and then Platonism for Christianity" which is exactly what I've been saying.

You are trying to build a very slanted picture of history to support your bias anti-Amil beliefs. I do not respect that.

Why couldn't it be you who is building a slanted picture of history to support your biased anti-premil beliefs?

 

[WPM]

History is history. If it discredits someone, so be it.

I know. That's why I included it. Nonetheless it does say, "His purpose was to recover Plato for Platonism, and then Platonism for Christianity" which is exactly what I've been saying.

Why couldn't it be you who is building a slanted picture of history to support your biased anti-premil beliefs?

I let the ECFs speak for themselves. You do not. You twist history to suit your mistaken opinions. You do the same with Scripture. Where are your historic quotes? Nowhere! Why would anyone take your Op serious? It is totally discredited.

• Quote Origen's Platonism! The fact is: you do not have it.
• Quote the School of Alexandria's Platonism! The fact is: you do not have it.

 

[David in NJ]

@WPM and @Rich R

Not one excerpt from religious history has any bearing upon the Holy Scriptures = the Word of God!

The Scriptures have the First Say, the Full Body of the Mind of Christ, and the Last Say.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

“Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.

 

[WPM]

@WPM and @Rich R

Not one excerpt from religious history has any bearing upon the Holy Scriptures = the Word of God!

The Scriptures have the First Say, the Full Body of the Mind of Christ, and the Last Say.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

“Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.

Who said otherwise?

 

[David in NJ]

Who said otherwise?

Both of you are bantering, like in a ping pong match.

Move UP to the Holy Scriptures where the REAL HIS-story Speaks to us Today!

 

[WPM]

Both of you are bantering, like in a ping pong match.

Move UP to the Holy Scriptures where the REAL HIS-story Speaks to us Today!

One deals with what is before us. The claims of this thread need challenged. They are grossly false.

 

[David in NJ]

One deals with what is before us. The claims of this thread need challenged. They are grossly false.

IF they are, the Scriptures will expose the falsehood.
For it is written: "there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed"

IF they are true, the Scriptures where bear it UP with Light to SEE!
For it is written: "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a Light unto my Path"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There you go again with your nasty underhand digs. You cannot resist it can you? Just when I though there was a semblance of humility and contrition from you, you say this. How sad!

I did it because of Premils like you who are spreading lies online to wrongly misrepresent Christian history and the Christian fathers (without ever even going into any type of deep honest objective research to find out whether what is being propagated is true). Guess what? It has been profitable.

I have challenged many blinkered and bias Premils and outed their lies. They don't like getting caught on.

They are so anti-Amil that they cannot accept the truth re history.

Right. It's not surprising that he would do that after having already misrepresented Amil as if our doctrine is based on allegorized scriptures when the fact of the matter is that our doctrine is based on clear, straightforward scripture. We use that foundation to help interpret more difficult scriptures contained in highly symbolic books like Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelation.

 

[The Light]

I can hate the sin but love the sinner. I do not hold grudges. I have no personal animosity toward you. You sound like a nice brother. But, I do grieve over deception, wherever it comes from.

Says the guy who was caught misrepresenting Luke 21:36 by changing the Greek in an attempt to lead people from the truth. All to protect a fallen doctrine birthed by unbelieving men who did not believe that God would keep his promise to His Chosen.

 

[The Light]

I have challenged many blinkered and bias Premils and outed their lies. They don't like getting caught on.

Speaking of getting caught, you have been.

Your challenge is never based on the Word of God.

 

[covenantee]

His Chosen

Who are "His Chosen"? What makes them chosen?

1. Their DNA
2. Their religion
3. Their culture
4. Their domicile
5. Their faithfulness and obedience to God and His Son
6. Something else

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Says the guy who was caught misrepresenting Luke 21:36 by changing the Greek in an attempt to lead people from the truth. All to protect a fallen doctrine birthed by unbelieving men who did not believe that God would keep his promise to His Chosen.

Luke 21:33-36 definitely doesn't support your doctrine regardless of how he presented it, so you need to stop acting as if it does.

What promise are you talking about exactly and who are God's chosen?

 

[The Light]

Luke 21:33-36 definitely doesn't support your doctrine regardless of how he presented it, so you need to stop acting as if it does.

So it's just fine and dandy that what he did was an attempt to deceive others with the change he made to scripture and all you are concerned about is your doctrine.

And that is ALWAYS the problem.

 

[WPM]

Says the guy who was caught misrepresenting Luke 21:36 by changing the Greek in an attempt to lead people from the truth. All to protect a fallen doctrine birthed by unbelieving men who did not believe that God would keep his promise to His Chosen.

The truth will set you free.

 

[WPM]

So it's just fine and dandy that what he did was an attempt to deceive others with the change he made to scripture and all you are concerned about is your doctrine.

And that is ALWAYS the problem.

Luke 21:33-36 supports Amil. You cannot handle addressing it. That is why you avoid it like the plague.

 

[The Light]

Luke 21:33-36 supports Amil. You cannot handle addressing it. That is why you avoid it like the plague.

LOL. You are something else. Do you need me to repost your attempt to deceive others into believing your doctrine?

Why did you find a need to change the Greek in the scripture to fool others? Because it disproves your doctrine and you couldn't take it, so you tried to cheat the truth.

It always about the doctrine with those that think they have replaced Israel. It's never about seeking the truth.

 

[covenantee]

Luke 21:33-36 definitely doesn't support your doctrine regardless of how he presented it, so you need to stop acting as if it does.

What promise are you talking about exactly and who are God's chosen?

Guess he don't know.

 

[WPM]

LOL. You are something else. Do you need me to repost your attempt to deceive others into believing your doctrine?

Why did you find a need to change the Greek in the scripture to fool others? Because it disproves your doctrine and you couldn't take it, so you tried to cheat the truth.

It always about the doctrine with those that think they have replaced Israel. It's never about seeking the truth.

You are describing yourself. Your frustration emanates from the fact that you have yet to provide one single passage in the whole of God's Word that teaches a rapture of the Church, followed by a tribulation, followed by 3rd coming. You cannot do it because it does not exist. It is a man-made Jesuit doctrine that you have been blinded by.