22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Illuminator]

LOL! You just don't get it. You are just a robot incapable of having any thoughts of your own. I DO NOT CARE about "Protestant scholarship".

Do you understand what I'm saying? There are many false teachers in BOTH Catholicism and Protestantism. Is that something you are capable of understanding? Who are YOU to decide who should be respected or not? You have clearly shown that you are not qualified to make that determination.

Rejecting the Nicene Creed disqualifies you from making any determinations about Christianity, Protestant or Catholic.
False teachers in Catholicism are studied and resolved in councils and formally expressed in encyclicals and synods. The laity are also involved. The Church is in a constant state of renewal/reform; doctrines are not clarified unless they are challenged. That's why the catechism is so thick.

How to Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[BreadOfLife]

Are you pretending to be dense or...? You have already forgotten the post where I talked about the verses which indicate that all people have sinned and I referenced Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:17-18? You even responded to what I said about those already. While you may disagree with me about those you can't say that I haven't provided any scriptures to back up what I'm saying because I have. Are you starting to lose your memory? You might want to get that checked out.

Don’t blame ME because YOU don’t understand how to read Scripture.
The Bible doesn’t imply that every single person has committed sin,

I gave you a list of exceptions – and in typical fashion – you simply rejected them,,
Jesus didn’t sin.
Babies cannot sin
Severely retarded people don’t even possess the faculties to sin.

God CAN and DOES make exceptions – as He did in the case of Mary, Kecharitomene

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are clearly plainly resolutely unwaveringly determined to continue making a fool of yourself.
Don't let me stop you.
Do tell us how to "day" Peter in Greek.
You alone know.
And don't forget 1 Corinthians 10:4.

Christ The Petra.

He certainly IS the Petra of 1 Cor. 10:4.

He’s just NOT the Petra of Matt. 16:18, however. Peter is.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Can you just tone it down a few notches and act like an adult for once? I'm trying to have an adult discussion here. Are you okay with actually doing that?

You could have fooled me.

You’ve carried on like a spoiled child during our entire exchange . . .

I acknowledge that there can be exceptions to what we're talking about, but Mary was neither a baby/toddler nor a severely retarded person. So, stop trying to think of excuses for your false doctrine that have nothing to do with Mary herself. Apart from these extreme examples we're talking about, the Bible clearly teaches that all people sin. That would include Mary. You are desperately trying to get around this, but your attempts to do so are absolutely pathetic.

WRONG.

Rom 3:23 isn’t about ALL people. It’s about FOOLISH people.
It’s a direct reference to Psalm 14, which begins, “The FOOL says in his heart, there is no god.”

Consider Heb. 9:27, which says:
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Did Enoch die??
Did Elijah die??

God CAN and DOES make exceptions – just as He did in the case of Mary, Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28).

 

[covenantee]

He certainly IS the Petra of 1 Cor. 10:4.

He’s just NOT the Petra of Matt. 16:18, however. Peter is.

Jesus said that Peter was petros, not petra.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus said that Peter was petros, not petra.

He BOTH in Matt 16:18.

Jesus called him "Kepha" - the only Aramaic word for "Rock".
"You are Kepha and on this Kepha, I will build my church . . ."

That's why Paul refers to him NOT as "Peter/Petros" in his letters - but "Cephas".
Do your homework . . .

 

[PinSeeker]

I don't agree that large numbers of Jews will come to Christ which will be proof the current age is nearing its conclusion.

I don't think I said "proof that the current age nearing its conclusion," but only that "I think ~ don't know this to be true" (I was sure to enter that little qualifier) "that will be an indicator that the fullness of the Gentiles has been brought in." That can't be proven, and you may or may not agree with this, but it can't really be refuted, either. And I did classify all that as a relatively minor point that can only be speculated on.

And I would add this as an aside regarding "nearing its conclusion." There are two perspectives on that, I think, God's and ours. :) It is all "near" as far as God is concerned; to Him, as David says, "a thousand years in (His) sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." But to us, that's not so much the case. :) It's often a very hard thing to wait upon the Lord... :)

I believe Jews and well as Gentiles have been entering the Kingdom of God throughout this age of Gospel grace.

So do I, and I was clear in stating that. But, near the end of the Church Age, I think many ethnic Jews will come to the Lord in a short period of time. Again, that's speculation on my part, but it seems to me consistent with what Jesus says in Matthew 24. Yes, He's talking about the entire Church Age, but I see a ramping up (to put it mildly) near the end, or at least as we get ever closer.

Because if I'm rightly understanding Scripture since Christ's cross and resurrection there is no distinction between the two. When we are in Christ the wall of separation is gone, and there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christians of all the nations of the world.

I agree. But I think it not to be so simple. Not that you're over-simplifying it; I don't mean to insinuate that. But I think it's a different thing to say the Gospel is open to all, regardless of ethnicity (so in that sense the wall of separation is indeed gone) and then to some extent (not that you mean to do this, but...) soft-pedal the distinctive Jewish race, even in the eyes of the Lord, which of course we cannot see through but only acknowledge, as Isaiah does, that His thoughts and ways are different than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Again, grace and peace to you!

 

[covenantee]

He BOTH in Matt 16:18.

Jesus called him "Kepha" - the only Aramaic word for "Rock".
"You are Kepha and on this Kepha, I will build my church . . ."

That's why Paul refers to him NOT as "Peter/Petros" in his letters - but "Cephas".
Do your homework . . .

Thanks for today's guffaws.

Let's see that earliest Aramaic manuscript. You know, the one that pre-dates the earliest Greek manuscript.

In every reference to the name "Peter" in Scripture, he is petros.

Paul refers to him as Peter/Petros in Galatians 2:7-8.

Got any more free entertainment today?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for today's guffaws.

Let's see that earliest Aramaic manuscript. You know, the one that pre-dates the earliest Greek manuscript.

In every reference to the name "Peter" in Scripture, he is petros.

Paul refers to him as Peter/Petros in Galatians 2:7-8.

Got any more free entertainment today?

In Galatians, Paul mentions Peter twice – but refers to him refers to him as “Cephas” FOUR timers.
In 1 Co.9 , he again refers to him as “Cephas”.

WHY do you think that is, Einstein?

 

[Truth7t7]

So - how about that photo on your driver's license??
Or the pictures of Mom and Aunt Winnie on your mantle at home??

Complete Anti-Catholic hypocrisy . . .

This is eschatology not Roman Catholicism, start another thread outside of eschatology, I have no interest in your religion, let alone having it pushed on those desiring to discuss eschatology and prophecy

 

[covenantee]

In Galatians, Paul mentions Peter twice – but refers to him refers to him as “Cephas” FOUR timers.
In 1 Co.9 , he again refers to him as “Cephas”.

WHY do you think that is, Einstein?

"That's why Paul refers to him NOT as "Peter/Petros" in his letters - but "Cephas"."

That was your claim.

I proved it wrong.

In every reference to the name "Peter" in Scripture, he is petros.

Prove that wrong.

 

[covenantee]

In Galatians, Paul mentions Peter twice – but refers to him refers to him as “Cephas” FOUR timers.
In 1 Co.9 , he again refers to him as “Cephas”.

WHY do you think that is, Einstein?

In 1 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:1, Peter identifies himself not as Cephas but as "Peter"!!

Imagine that!!

You obviously believe he was wrong!!

Whom to believe?

1. You
2. Peter

Do you need a hint?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Bible doesn't say this. Severely retard people don't even have the full faculties to commit sin, which requires intent and full complicity.

Can you show me the Chapter and Verse??

Sorry that you need everything spelled out to you. Was Mary severely retarded? I'm pretty sure she wasn't. So, how exactly do verses like Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:17-18 not apply to her?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

None of the early reformers taught that Mary was a sinner, or she had other children. Conservative Protestants reacted against such diabolical Modernism with the formation of the fundamentalist movement in 1908, upholding 5 biblical truths. The pope reacted against Modernism calling it "the synthesis of all heresies" in 1907.

The time frame follows the Enlightenment Era, a period in history that "enlightened" mankind with communism, skepticism and formal atheism. A few relativist liberal Protestants were influenced by Modernism and started teaching things the reformers never taught, and the infection spread like a cancer to what we see today: a cover-up of reformist teaching about Mary. (by conjuring up phantoms)

Luther’s Mariology: Have Catholic Apologists Exaggerated It?​

And Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the Classical “Reformation” Protestant Mariology?

Am I supposed to care about this? I don't. They were wrong and Catholicism is wrong about Mary being sinless. End of story.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Just as I suspected. You are just another angry anti-trinitarian trouble maker, a different classification of anti-Protestant/anti-Catholic who likes to argue with everybody about everything.

Anti-Trinitarian? Why are you resorting to lying about me? I am not an anti-Trinitarian. If you want to be taken seriously then you should stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

View attachment 32895

Rejecting the Nicene Creed disqualifies you from making any determinations about Christianity, Protestant or Catholic.

Oh, is the Nicene Creed scripture? Is that in your Bible? What a joke. I didn't say anything one way or another about what is contained in it. You say I reject it? Tell me one thing in it that I said I reject? Good luck with that.

What I'm saying is that I don't care about creeds, I care about scripture. If that creed portrays scripture accurately, fine. But, I don't care because scripture is enough for me. I don't need a creed to interpret scripture for me. Understand?

False teachers in Catholicism are studied and resolved in councils and formally expressed in encyclicals and synods. The laity are also involved. The Church is in a constant state of renewal/reform; doctrines are not clarified unless they are challenged. That's why the catechism is so thick.

How to Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Doesn't look they're doing a very good job since there are still several false teachings in there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You could have fooled me.

You’ve carried on like a spoiled child during our entire exchange . . .

LOL. Which one of us has only posted things in this thread that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread? Let me give you a hint. It's you. So, you are the child here and everyone can see that.

WRONG.

Rom 3:23 isn’t about ALL people. It’s about FOOLISH people.
It’s a direct reference to Psalm 14, which begins, “The FOOL says in his heart, there is no god.”

Goodness gracious. You truly have no discernment whatsoever. Some people believe in God from the time they are very young. So, you're saying those people are sinless since they never said there is no God?

Consider Heb. 9:27, which says:
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Did Enoch die??
Did Elijah die??

God CAN and DOES make exceptions – just as He did in the case of Mary, Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28).

I never said there can't be exceptions to things like this. I acknowledged that babies are not included in Romans 3:23 or severely retarded people like you mentioned. But, there's no basis whatsoever for saying that Mary is not included among all who have sinned. None whatsoever.

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is eschatology not Roman Catholicism, start another thread outside of eschatology, I have no interest in your religion, let alone having it pushed on those desiring to discuss eschatology and prophecy

I'm NOT the one who brought the Catholic church into this conversation.

When YOU guys go on your anti-Catholic tirades - you INVITE me to expose and correct you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

In 1 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:1, Peter identifies himself not as Cephas but as "Peter"!!

Imagine that!!

You obviously believe he was wrong!!

Whom to believe?

1. You
2. Peter

Do you need a hint?

I believe Scripture.
What's more - I'm not blindingly ignorant of languages - and I don't stagger around claiming that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Greek to one another.

Even a paper-weight knows that they spoke Aramaic . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry that you need everything spelled out to you. Was Mary severely retarded? I'm pretty sure she wasn't.

So, in YOUR world, God is only capable of prohibiting severely retarded people from sinning??
Interesting,

That a weak, impotent little god you've invented for yourself . . .

So, how exactly do verses like Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:17-18 not apply to her?

As I already explained - as the NT Fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - Mary's purity surpasses the OT Type.

NT fulfillments ate ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT Types - without exception.