Author Topic: Amillenialism vs Pre-Trib Millennialism: Comments (Read 20716 times)

Scripter · « **Reply #52 on:** September 30, 2018, 05:21:38 pm »

Your vocab has huge issues.

The real replacement problem is Gal 3:17. Judaism replaced the promise with the law. Until you understand that is underlying Gal 3, you don't know what you are saying, and there is no contemporary issue, because it is moot.

I have never heard of pre-, mid- or post- rapture in 45 years presence in churches or theological study (MCS from Regent College, Vancouver BC). You must have meant millenium. So you are on your own there.

Looks like we are now 'rightly dividing' the rapture into different parts, lol? Will MADness never end?

guest8 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 30, 2018, 07:35:27 pm »

Quote from: Scripter on September 30, 2018, 05:21:38 pm

Your vocab has huge issues.

The real replacement problem is Gal 3:17. Judaism replaced the promise with the law. Until you understand that is underlying Gal 3, you don't know what you are saying, and there is no contemporary issue, because it is moot.

I have never heard of pre-, mid- or post- rapture in 45 years presence in churches or theological study (MCS from Regent College, Vancouver BC). You must have meant millenium. So you are on your own there.

Looks like we are now 'rightly dividing' the rapture into different parts, lol? Will MADness never end?

Hello Scripter....we meet again and as usual we are on opposite ends. Gal 3 is known as the Magna Carter of the Churches. It in it simplest form is a admonishment to the Galatian a church for the idiocy of the congregation there. Rem, these are the Jewish that are trying to get from Grace via the Law to Grace by Faith.

Over 95% of the Churches around the world do not preach anything about the Rapture to come or the Millennium for that fact. In most cases, Amillennialism is the main course with Mankind doing his thing until the return of Jesus in the far far future

As far as rightly dividing the Bible, it seems you missed the boat. The Law (judaism) and the Prophets stopped at John. The Kingdom of Heaven gospel preached by the apostles and Jesus was for the Jewish People and not for the GENTILES. (there were Gentiles that did convert during this time.) After Jesus Died, was buried and resurrected according to scripture (1 cor 15:1-4), Acts became the Book (by Mark) that would be the transitional book from the Law to Grace by Faith.

The Jewish Nation is/has been blinded to this for almost 2000 years. The Talmudic Judahism is a far cry from the Messianic Judahism the OT shows us. Yet, God will come back for His People (Israel) as hammerer time and time again in Romans 9,10 and 11.

To think otherwise is to impune the WORD of GOD.

Daniel's 70th week will be to bring the Jewish nation 'to the wall' (so to speak) making them come to the realization that Jesus really was their Messiah. From this, we see that a remnant of these Jewish believers will be saved (in Petra) by GOD Himself.

Daniel's 70th week in addition will punish the rest of the world for all their sins. Those that believe in Jesus Christ (brought about by the 144,000 Jewish Evangelist) will be martyred to show their believe as the Period of Grace by Faith is over.

All unbelievers will be sent to HELL to await the White Throne Judgement.

All the survivor nations will go through the Sheep and Goat Judgements prior to Millennium. Those nations that helped Israel will survive and live through the Millennial were all the Gentiles (gentiles only)will have 100 years to decide if they believe in Jesus Christ. If they do not, then they too will be placed in HELL to await their fate.

This is the fate of the those Churches that do not preach (1 cor 15:1-4) The teachings of Paul that the only way to Heaven, is Grace by Faith and Faith alone.

Blade

Scripter · « **Reply #54 on:** October 03, 2018, 08:15:19 am »

There is no exactness about the resurrections and some future events. To believe on Christ is to have the 1st resurrection; to evade the 2nd death is to have the 2nd resurrection. the long reign of Christ is taking place now; he was enthroned by his resurrection in Acts 2:30, the enthronement foreseen by David. At the end of this reign, this place will be destroyed (or made a lake of fire) for the rebellious, and the believers will enjoy the NHNE. There is nothing Judaic to happen, although there is the harassment of the saints before the final victory.

patrick jane · « **Reply #55 on:** October 03, 2018, 09:49:43 am »

Quote from: Scripter on October 03, 2018, 08:15:19 am

There is no exactness about the resurrections and some future events. To believe on Christ is to have the 1st resurrection; to evade the 2nd death is to have the 2nd resurrection. the long reign of Christ is taking place now; he was enthroned by his resurrection in Acts 2:30, the enthronement foreseen by David. At the end of this reign, this place will be destroyed (or made a lake of fire) for the rebellious, and the believers will enjoy the NHNE. There is nothing Judaic to happen, although there is the harassment of the saints before the final victory.

So you don't think God has future dealings with Israel the nation?

guest8 · « **Reply #56 on:** October 05, 2018, 09:35:13 pm »

Quote from: patrick jane on October 03, 2018, 09:49:43 am

Quote from: Scripter on October 03, 2018, 08:15:19 am
There is no exactness about the resurrections and some future events. To believe on Christ is to have the 1st resurrection; to evade the 2nd death is to have the 2nd resurrection. the long reign of Christ is taking place now; he was enthroned by his resurrection in Acts 2:30, the enthronement foreseen by David. At the end of this reign, this place will be destroyed (or made a lake of fire) for the rebellious, and the believers will enjoy the NHNE. There is nothing Judaic to happen, although there is the harassment of the saints before the final victory.
So you don't think God has future dealings with Israel the nation?

In acts 2:30, states that God Foresaw the enthronement of Jesus on David's Throne. Gabriel brought forth the message to Mary that here child would sit on the throne of David.

David's throne was not around in 70 AD so how could Jesus Sit on it?

Again you are one of the ones that believe in the interpretation of Amellinnialism. I will say it again,, It is a very Very Dangerous position to take. Impugning the Character of GOD, denying the WORD of GOD. But it is your choice.

Blade

Scripter · « **Reply #57 on:** October 13, 2018, 06:38:33 pm »

The amellinnialism argument is usually associated with replacement theology which states that Israel forfeited their rights to the covenants given to them by GOD (Jehovah) in ancient times.

1, we find from Galatians that the promise was the Gospel all along. Same with the official sample sermon of Acts 13. Neither passage seems to have any concern about land or geographic rights.

2,"Replacement theology" is an invention lately by futurists and D'ists, to sound persecuted. But in fact, Gal 3:17 shows that there was someone or something who replaced the promise to Israel by the Law, and that has been the problem ever since. That replacement was how Judaism in the 1st century did things. Paul countered with the fact that the Gospel is the fulfillment of everything promised, in Acts 13:32, in Gal 3, in Rom 15:6+.

guest8 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 14, 2018, 01:07:07 am »

Quote from: Scripter on October 13, 2018, 06:38:33 pm

The amellinnialism argument is usually associated with replacement theology which states that Israel forfeited their rights to the covenants given to them by GOD (Jehovah) in ancient times.

1, we find from Galatians that the promise was the Gospel all along. Same with the official sample sermon of Acts 13. Neither passage seems to have any concern about land or geographic rights.

2,"Replacement theology" is an invention lately by futurists and D'ists, to sound persecuted. But in fact, Gal 3:17 shows that there was someone or something who replaced the promise to Israel by the Law, and that has been the problem ever since. That replacement was how Judaism in the 1st century did things. Paul countered with the fact that the Gospel is the fulfillment of everything promised, in Acts 13:32, in Gal 3, in Rom 15:6+.

This is one of the most dangerous postions to take in the Bible. Against the WORD of GOD for He tells all of use the where and How, He will reclaim His People, bring them through a cleansing fire and place himself in their hearts forever and ever. These remnant will help Him Rule of Israel.

God throughout the Old and New testament tells us what He is going to do to and do with Israel at the end days. Romans, 9,10 and 11 gives us details of Israel past, present and future.

In Gen 12:1-4 God told Abraham, those who helped Israel would be blessed and those that cursed would also be cursed;

So be very crarefully what you ask for!

Blade

Scripter · « **Reply #59 on:** October 19, 2018, 08:08:12 am »

You're not reading things very well.

We find from the NT that it is the faith of Abraham that defines things. Rom 9, Gal 3. It is not the race or DNA. So the warning about blessing or cursing is not tied to the nation or race, it is actually a statement about having faith in Christ, like Abraham did, Gal 3.

There is therefore no place in the NT where the future holds another episode for Israel or Judaism. Look at Rom 11. 'they will be saved.' What did 'saved' mean all through Romans? It means justification from past sin, and a change regarding current sin. The 11:26 text also qualifies things further (the olive tree analogy already did) by saying 'in this way' (the way of only some of the nation being believers). Then the passage quotes Isaiah about things already in existence. Paul meant that they were going on then. The Redeemer had come from Zion.

Look at Rom 2, 8, I Cor 15, Heb 9, 2 Pet 3, Act 17, and find a clear extended Judaic--Israel future. It's not there.

The blessing promised to Christ is fully completed in the resurrection, because the resurrection seals that we (us) are justified from our sins. That is exactly what Acts 13's sermon was about and Rom 15 through its 4 OT quotes.

There is clearly 'replacement theology' in Heb 8, 9, which is why it is so strange how the RT people of these past 2 decades treat Hebrews as an apostolic document. They have many contortions of it, instead of accepting its shedding of Judaism.

guest8 · « **Reply #60 on:** October 19, 2018, 09:34:58 pm »

Quote from: Scripter on October 19, 2018, 08:08:12 am

You're not reading things very well.

We find from the NT that it is the faith of Abraham that defines things. Rom 9, Gal 3. It is not the race or DNA. So the warning about blessing or cursing is not tied to the nation or race, it is actually a statement about having faith in Christ, like Abraham did, Gal 3.

There is therefore no place in the NT where the future holds another episode for Israel or Judaism. Look at Rom 11. 'they will be saved.' What did 'saved' mean all through Romans? It means justification from past sin, and a change regarding current sin. The 11:26 text also qualifies things further (the olive tree analogy already did) by saying 'in this way' (the way of only some of the nation being believers). Then the passage quotes Isaiah about things already in existence. Paul meant that they were going on then. The Redeemer had come from Zion.

Look at Rom 2, 8, I Cor 15, Heb 9, 2 Pet 3, Act 17, and find a clear extended Judaic--Israel future. It's not there.

The blessing promised to Christ is fully completed in the resurrection, because the resurrection seals that we (us) are justified from our sins. That is exactly what Acts 13's sermon was about and Rom 15 through its 4 OT quotes.

There is clearly 'replacement theology' in Heb 8, 9, which is why it is so strange how the RT people of these past 2 decades treat Hebrews as an apostolic document. They have many contortions of it, instead of accepting its shedding of Judaism.

Oooooookay,,,,,,,,Good Luck my friend

Blade

Billy Evmur · « **Reply #61 on:** October 20, 2018, 08:06:03 am »

It is a very strange way to read the bible to accept Revs 21 in it's entirety as literal but to reject Revs 20 as literal but interpret it as symbolic.

The thing is a piece, a sequence of future events...in the original there were not even chapters or verse.

guest8 · « **Reply #62 on:** October 20, 2018, 10:02:17 pm »

Quote from: Billy Evmur on October 20, 2018, 08:06:03 am

It is a very strange way to read the bible to accept Revs 21 in it's entirety as literal but to reject Revs 20 as literal but interpret it as symbolic.

The thing is a piece, a sequence of future events...in the original there were not even chapters or verse.

I don't think we should go there ("The Thing is a piece....")

I read the WHOLE Book as literal, historical and grammatical. Not symbolic like some need to do to support their worldview or lifestyle.

Blade

Scripter · « **Reply #63 on:** October 21, 2018, 11:28:44 am »

The problem with the 1000 is not literal vs symbolic as much as just lack of info. The NHNE is already an established expectation from Isaiah. Do not make so many doctrines out of something mentioned only a couple times in a very rarified type of literature (1st century Jewish apocalyptic). The idea that the Rev makes for some neat tidy sequence (like a manual on how to assemble a hospital bed) is stupidity.

Billy Evmur · « **Reply #64 on:** October 21, 2018, 12:39:51 pm »

No you can't do that.

You can't say you believe Isaiah when he speaks about a new heaven and a new earth but you won't accept what he says about Israel being the highest mountain when the nations will flock to Jerusalem to the house of the God of Jacob to learn His ways.

Nations will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks and study war no more

patrick jane forums

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Author Topic: Amillenialism vs Pre-Trib Millennialism: Comments (Read 20716 times)

Scripter

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

guest8

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

Scripter

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

patrick jane

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

guest8

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

Scripter

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

guest8

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

Scripter

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

guest8

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

Billy Evmur

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

guest8

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

Scripter

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

Billy Evmur

Re: Amillennialism or Premillennialism

Related Topics

Recent Topics