The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[Rich R]

I hold to the Pre... Position but refuse ti argue for it in favor of it because what Yehovah and Yashuah have is the final authority and to impress upon others, our personal takes, at all cost is dumb. I am no more Creator God than you are and no matter who is right, we are to love one another. Perhaps we should just wave as all of us are taken up?

That is very true. I said somewhere in this thread that all of us are going to find out where we held doctrinal error in this life. After all, we see through a dark glass.

Paul never held back when he sought to correct wrong doctrine. In fact throughout the scriptures there was always a man who tried to bring people back to a right understanding.

Even the early church had doctrinal differences as evidenced by some councils in the Book of Acts. They appear to have been settled in an orderly an respectful way. No reason we can't do the same in the 21st century.

As far as airing my views on this forum, I have no idea but that someone may see error in their doctrine and come to a more perfect knowledge of the truth. I know I'm always grateful when someone corrects me. The scriptures are for doctrine, reproof, and correction. I have a sense that God has blessed you with a knowledge of His word. Why not share it? You may just put a brother or a sister on a firmer footing in God's word.

 

[David in NJ]

Exactly! But it seems Premillennialists can't help themselves! Can't really blame them (lol) after all they get no help from the Scriptures!

LOL - thank you @rwb,
and how are you doing?

 

[David in NJ]

Well the language does suggest he may have died and was brought back to life. Even with all the euphemistic language it does suggest he may have died. I would base that only on verse 6. But I still hold he did not die ands was speaking in a metaphor given the poetic form he used in his prayer.

Jonah 2​

​

King James Version​

​

​

2 Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly,
2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
3 For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.
4 Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
5 The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.

This is a passage I would not argue about for it gives credence to both sides.

Well the language does suggest he may have died and was brought back to life.

ABSOLUTELY

I still hold he did not die ands was speaking in a metaphor given the poetic form he used in his prayer.

This may indeed be True!

 

[David in NJ]

Jonah 2 says:

Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly

AND

I cried by reason of my affliction to the LORD, and He heard me; out of the belly of hell I cried

Can we really interpret both verses literally? Maybe?

YES

But we do not have to be 100% certain to 'get the Message'!!!

Which means = maybe!

 

[WPM]

I edited my reply. Check it out.

BTW, I have no personal issue with you either. Even then, being on the other side of fence, I think much of what you've said is not according to the truth.

But I am confused about something you said. On the one hand you say you respect one's right to a different opinion. On the other hand you say hate deception and people deceiving, that my OP is deceiving. I'm not sensing any respect there. That's OK. I don't feel as though I deserve respect from anybody and everybody. I'm just wondering when is it in your mind that someone crosses the line between having a different opinion and outright deception.

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.

 

[WPM]

Like I had any to begin with in your eyes? However, I have to offer you my gratitude for pointing out I need to be more careful about what I say in the future. Maybe quick and dirty is not the way to go. I'll keep that in mind Thanks!

Still all things considered, the main point of my OP was that the allegorical method distorts the scriptures. Though I may have been incorrect in some details, it doesn't change the thesis.

BTW, I actually looked and there doesn't appear to be a way to remove an OP like you can delete a reply. Never noticed that.

All I am asking you to do is edit out everything in the Op that you cannot historically prove or which you now know is historically false or questionable. After all, you are making a lot of big speaks. You are stating things as a fact, when you do not have a clue what you're saying. I'm asking you to verify claims before making absolute statements. I think that is reasonable. I'm sure you have no desire to be deliberately deceptive.

 

[Rich R]

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.

Sounds reasonable! I think the scriptures say that. Assuming we take that part literally.

 

[marks]

Yes. There are some things in the scriptures we should take as an allegory. In fact Paul said he himself used an allegory in Galatians 4:24. An allegory is a legitimate tool of grammar. It is a figure of speech which is used to emphasize something. They are to be used and understood in a precise way. They are not to be used nor read in some willy-nilly manner. Though not literal in and of themselves, they to point to a literal meaning.

The main thing is, we need to recognize when something should be taken literal and when it is a figure of speech. The general rule of thumb is to take something literal whenever possible, whenever it doesn't create contradictions or other problems. It's exegesis 101.

Personally, I see no reason to take the 1,000 years in Revelation as nothing other than 1,000 years. It works just fine that way.

To me the point is whether or not the Bible presents something as an allegory, like Sarah and Hagar, and whether the Bible defines the meaning of that allegory for us, like Sarah and Hagar.

Otherwise, I think the simplest thing to say is that someone's declaration that something is allegory, and what that allegory means, lacks Scriptural authority, and are simply that person's opinion, unsupported in Scripture.

Much love!

 

[Rich R]

All I am asking you to do is edit out everything in the Op that you cannot historically prove or which you now know is historically false or questionable. After all, you are making a lot of big speaks. You are stating things as a fact, when you do not have a clue what you're saying. I'm asking you to verify claims before making absolute statements. I think that is reasonable. I'm sure you have no desire to be deliberately deceptive.

Thanks to some of the information you supplied I did edit the OP to more accord with history. I included Barnabas, and the other ECFs you mentioned in the post. The history in that post is still quick and dirty, but maybe now a little less quick and dirty.

 

[WPM]

Thanks to some of the information you supplied I did edit the OP to more accord with history. I included Barnabas, and the other ECFs you mentioned in the post. The history in that post is still quick and dirty, but maybe now a little less quick and dirty.

I appreciate you doing this.

However, I still thing it is not historically true what you say re the Alexandrian school: "The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures." Who told you this? What historical proof do you have for this? Can you quote actual historic proof or delete that statement?

I have been researching this for a long while and see zero evidence of this. It is normally thrown out by ignorant and bias Premil websites who are trying to discredit Amil.

 

[rwb]

LOL - thank you @rwb,
and how are you doing?

I'm doing very well David, thank you for asking. It sounds like you are doing better these days as well. I hope your health issues have been fully resolved.

 

[rwb]

OK.

BTW, coventee pointed out that I was mis-peslling Origen's name. It's not Origin.

Having endeavored himself through much time and study of the ECF, I fully understand why WPM would be adamant about setting straight the record regarding the early church fathers. I'm encouraged to see you have edited your OP after learning what you had posted does not align with what ECF's actually taught.

I'm wondering why you appear not to have the same conscience consideration when it comes to contradictions you have been shown that your doctrine forces into the Scripture? Even you have said there cannot be contradictions in the Word of God. Why do you simply gloss over and ignore the contradictions that have been shown you?

 

[Rich R]

I appreciate you doing this.

I thing it is not historically true what you say re the Alexandrian school: "The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures." Who told you this? What historical proof do you have for this? Can you quote actual historic proof or delete that statement?

I have been researching this for a long while and see zero evidence of this. It is normally thrown out by ignorant and bias Premil websites who are trying to discredit Amil.

"Origen believes that Platonism contains truths present in the biblical account about reality. His purpose was to recover Plato for Platonism, and then Platonism for Christianity."​

The Greek Philosophy, Knowledge and Faith​

​

"The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix and much mystical speculation."​

Alexandrian School​

​

"Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew also called Judaeus Philo, is a figure that spans two cultures, the Greek and the Hebrew. When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century B.C.E. it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen."​

Philo of Alexandria​

​

"The teachers at the school were Greek-trained and the educational principles of the school were thus firmly in Hellenism ... The Greek philosophical training of proselytes was thus a feature from the start, in itself opening the window on gradual departure from the Jewish customs the early believers would have engaged in."​

The Catechetical School in Alexandria​

​

I didn't see any of these websites were ignorant and bias Premil websites.​

 

[Rich R]

Having endeavored himself through much time and study of the ECF, I fully understand why WPM would be adamant about setting straight the record regarding the early church fathers. I'm encouraged to see you have edited your OP after learning what you had posted does not align with what ECF's actually taught.

I dare say WPM would have better spent his time studying the scriptures. But to each his own.

I'm wondering why you appear not to have the same conscience consideration when it comes to contradictions you have been shown that your doctrine forces into the Scripture? Even you have said there cannot be contradictions in the Word of God. Why do you simply gloss over and ignore the contradictions that have been shown you?

Could you be more specific? What have I said that contradicts the scriptures?

But if I have, would you think I'm the only one who has done so? Does everybody here but me have the absolute truth?

 

[WPM]

"Origen believes that Platonism contains truths present in the biblical account about reality. His purpose was to recover Plato for Platonism, and then Platonism for Christianity."​

​

The Greek Philosophy, Knowledge and Faith​

​

"The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix and much mystical speculation."​

​

Alexandrian School​

​

"Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew also called Judaeus Philo, is a figure that spans two cultures, the Greek and the Hebrew. When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century B.C.E. it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen."​

​

Philo of Alexandria​

​

"The teachers at the school were Greek-trained and the educational principles of the school were thus firmly in Hellenism ... The Greek philosophical training of proselytes was thus a feature from the start, in itself opening the window on gradual departure from the Jewish customs the early believers would have engaged in."​

​

The Catechetical School in Alexandria​

​

I didn't see any of these websites were ignorant and bias Premil websites.​

Your quotes are very slanted and designed to discredit Origen. They are not objective. Read the first link as it is commending of Origen. To quote Wikipedia is ridiculous. That is updated by anyone and everyone.

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

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Like I had any to begin with in your eyes? However, I have to offer you my gratitude for pointing out I need to be more careful about what I say in the future. Maybe quick and dirty is not the way to go. I'll keep that in mind Thanks!

Still all things considered, the main point of my OP was that the allegorical method distorts the scriptures. Though I may have been incorrect in some details, it doesn't change the thesis.

It was also your point that Amils use the allegorical method to distort scripture and that is false. I showed you how the foundation of Amil doctrine is one clear, straightforward scripture.

 

[David in NJ]

I'm doing very well David, thank you for asking. It sounds like you are doing better these days as well. I hope your health issues have been fully resolved.

YES, i remember your prayers for my healing = THANK YOU

i am about 90% on the hip surgery recovery - may never get back to 100%(in this life).

With that said, going from 5% to 90% is a BIG THANK YOU to God's gift to mankind for 'healing/repair' surgery.....AND
the prayers of the Saints!!!

 

[Wick Stick]

I still think it is not historically true what you say re the Alexandrian school: "The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures." Who told you this? What historical proof do you have for this? Can you quote actual historic proof or delete that statement?

I think perhaps he's confusing Philo of Alexandria with the church of the same city. That was indeed Philo's purpose. However, Philo was not a member of the church there. Philo was Jewish, founded his own sect (of Judaism, not Christianity) and died before the church was really a big thing there (c. 50AD).

Philo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[WPM]

I dare say WPM would have better spent his time studying the scriptures. But to each his own.

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your quotes are very slanted and designed to discredit Origen. They are not objective. Read the first link at it is for commending of Origen. To quote Wikipedia is ridiculous. That is updated by anyone and everyone.

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

Just like he did in the original post. If someone has to resort to misrepresenting the opposing view, it says a lot about their lack of confidence in their own view.